Assessing Hierarchy of Needs in Levels of Service

Assessing Hierarchy of Needs
in Levels of Service
Final Report
October 2005
FDOT BD 549-1
NCTR 527-08
Assessing Hierarchy of Needs
in Levels of Service
Final Report
Principal Investigator:
Jennifer S. Perone, Research Associate
CUTR Staff:
Philip L. Winters, TDM Program Director
Melissa Read, Graduate Research Assistant
Isaac Sankah, Graduate Research Assistant
National Center for Transit Research
Center for Urban Transportation Research
University of South Florida
4202 East Fowler Avenue, CUT 100
Tampa, FL 33620-5735
(813) 974-3120
Florida Department of Transportation
Public Transit Office
605 Suwannee Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450
(850) 414-4500
Project Manager:
Martin Guttenplan, FDOT
October 2005
FDOT Project BD 549-1
NCTR Project 527-08
The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)
who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not
necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Florida Department of Transportation or the
Research and Special Programs Administration.
This report does not constitute a standard,
specification, or regulation. The report is prepared in cooperation with the State of Florida
Department of Transportation and the U. S. Department of Transportation.
i
ii
1. Report No.
2. Government Accession No.
3. Recipient's Catalog No.
NCTR 527-08; FDOT BD 549-1
4. Title and Subtitle
5. Report Date
Assessing Hierarchy of Needs in Levels of Service
October 2005
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s)
8. Performing Organization Report No.
Perone, Jennifer; Winters, Philip; Read, Melissa; Sankah, Isaac
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
National Center for Transit Research
Center for Urban Transportation Research
University of South Florida
4202 E. Fowler Ave. CUT 100
Tampa, FL 33620-5375
11. Contract or Grant No.
DTRS98-G-00329
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Office of Research and Special Programs, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Washington, DC 20590
Florida DOT, 605 Suwannee, Tallahassee, Florida 32399
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
Supported by a Grant from the USDOT Research and Special Programs Administration, and the
Florida Department of Transportation.
16. Abstract
The primary focus of this research project was in providing empirical evidence of a Hierarchy of Transportation
Needs. The experimental procedure, methodology, and materials for this project were designed using both
transportation stated preferences studies as well as the work of Alderfer and his Existence, Relatedness, and
Growth (ERG) Theory (1972, 1985). The final product of this research work is the empirical evidence of the ERG
theory in transportation needs.
This project was a definitive success in providing evidence for the existence of a Hierarchy of Transportation
Needs. Without a doubt, participants responded to the survey questions in a manner which supports the
existence of a hierarchy in which most participants chose Existence needs over Relatedness needs over Growth
needs. It also demonstrated that a lower motivator need not be substantially satisfied before one can move onto
higher motivators.
Overall, these results are a breakthrough in the LOS literature, in that it can be stated that people will make
certain mode choices and transportation choices based upon a psychological need hierarchy. Future research
strategies are suggested to complete the transformation from ERG hierarchy of needs to multi-modal LOS
ranking.
17. Key Word
18. Distribution Statement
Level of Service, LOS, Hierarchy of Needs,
Maslow, Alderfer, Attitude, Modeling, Decisionmaking, Multi-modal LOS
No Restriction
This report is available to the public through the
NTIS, Springfield, VA 22161
19. Security Classif. (of this report)
Unclassified
20. Security Classif. (of this page)
Unclassified
iii
21. No. of Pages
129
22. Price
iv
Table of Contents
Table of Contents............................................................................................................ v
List of Tables .................................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures ................................................................................................................ vi
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... vii
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Contents of This Report ......................................................................................... 2
2. Literature Review ....................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Needs Theories...................................................................................................... 3
2.1.1 Maslow’s Theory of Human Motivation ........................................................... 3
2.1.2 Alderfer’s Existence, Relatedness and Growth Theory.................................... 7
2.2 Defining the Characteristics of Both Hierarchy of Needs and LOS for Each Mode. 9
2.3 Psychological Needs and Transportation Choice ................................................. 11
2.4 The Role of Motivational Factors in Mode Choice ................................................ 12
3. Empirical Testing of ERG in Transportation .......................................................... 15
3.1 Existence Issues ................................................................................................... 15
3.2 Relatedness Issues............................................................................................... 15
3.3 Growth................................................................................................................... 16
4. Development of the Questionnaire.......................................................................... 17
4.1 Three Levels of Transportation Attributes ............................................................. 17
4.2 Pilot Testing of the Original Questionnaire............................................................ 18
4.2.1 Participants .................................................................................................... 18
4.2.2 Pilot testing results ......................................................................................... 19
4.2.3 Problematic Relatedness versus Growth Questions: ..................................... 19
5. Methodology of the Final Questionnaire Administration ...................................... 23
5.1 Participants and Methodology............................................................................... 23
5.2 Demographics of Participants ............................................................................... 23
5.3 Current and Past Mode Usage.............................................................................. 26
6. Results of the Final Questionnaire Administration ............................................... 29
6.1 Overall Rankings of Importance of Existence, Relatedness, and Growth for Each
Set of Comparison Questions ..................................................................................... 32
6.1.1 Overall Rankings of Importance of Existence, Relatedness, and Growth for
Existence versus Relatedness Comparison Questions........................................... 33
6.1.2 Overall Rankings of Importance of Existence, Relatedness, and Growth for
Existence versus Growth Comparison Questions ................................................... 34
6.1.3 Overall Rankings of Importance of Existence, Relatedness, and Growth for
Relatedness versus Growth Comparison Questions............................................... 34
6.2 Three Simple ERG Questions (Triad Comparisons) Compared to Categorical
Existence, Relatedness, and Growth Questions (Dyad Comparisons) ....................... 35
6.3 Results by Demographics ..................................................................................... 35
6.3.1 Results by Gender ......................................................................................... 35
6.3.2 Results by Ethnicity ........................................................................................ 36
6.3.3 Results by Age Group .................................................................................... 36
6.3.4 Results by Number of Children under Age 16 Years ..................................... 37
6.3.5 Results by Employment and Student Status .................................................. 37
7. Discussion ................................................................................................................. 39
7.1 Discussion of Each Item as a Part of the Hierarchy Theory.................................. 39
7.1.1 Existence versus Relatedness ....................................................................... 39
v
7.1.2 Existence versus Growth................................................................................ 40
7.1.3 Relatedness versus Growth ........................................................................... 41
8. Conclusions............................................................................................................... 43
9. Future Research........................................................................................................ 47
10. References............................................................................................................... 49
Appendix A: Final Questionnaire .............................................................................. A-1
Appendix B: Survey Response Summary ................................................................ B-1
List of Tables
Table 1. Item Rankings ................................................................................................... 31
Table 2. Overall comparison of secondary Existence, Relatedness, and Growth
questions by item type. ................................................................................................... 34
Table 3. Gender difference for ratings of E, R, and G items for first scenario questions 36
Table 4. Gender differences on Existence Items Overall and by cluster membership.... 36
Table 5. Gender differences on Relatedness Items Overall and by cluster membership36
Table 6. Gender differences on Growth Items Overall and by cluster membership........ 36
Table 7. Ratings of E, R, and G (A versus B) items by employment status.................... 37
Table 8. Ratings of E, R, and G (A versus B) items by employment status.................... 37
List of Figures
Figure 1. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs ........................................................................... 4
Figure 2. Transportation Hierarchy of Needs Source: (Winters et al., 2001) .................... 7
Figure 3. Distribution of Participants by age and gender ................................................ 24
Figure 4. Distribution of respondents with children under the age of 16 ........................ 24
Figure 5. Distribution of Participants by ethnicity ........................................................... 25
Figure 6. Distribution of respondents by work status ...................................................... 25
Figure 7. Distribution of respondents by student status ................................................. 26
Figure 8. Number of cars available per respondent household ..................................... 27
Figure 9. Listing of Question RG as an Example for Reading Results ........................... 33
vi
Executive Summary
The primary focus of this research project was in providing empirical evidence of a
Hierarchy of Transportation Needs. The experimental procedure, methodology, and
materials for this project were designed using both transportation stated preferences
studies as well as the work of Alderfer and his Existence, Relatedness, and Growth
(ERG) Theory (1972, 1985). The final products of this research work are two-fold: the
empirical evidence of the ERG theory in transportation needs and the modeling of
decision-making in various transportation scenarios.
This project was a definitive success in providing evidence for the existence of a
Hierarchy of Transportation Needs. Without a doubt, participants responded to the
survey questions in a manner which supports the existence of a hierarchy in which
participants chose Existence needs over Relatedness needs over Growth needs. It also
demonstrated that a lower motivator need not be substantially satisfied before one can
move onto higher motivators.
Overall, these results are a breakthrough in the LOS literature, in that it can be stated
that people will make certain mode choices and transportation choices based upon a
psychological need hierarchy. Future research strategies are suggested to complete the
transformation from ERG hierarchy of needs to multi-modal LOS ranking.
vii
viii
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
The primary focus of this research project is to set the stage for the development of an
equivalent assessment of Level of Service between modes. For this to occur, it must be
empirically shown that a hierarchy of transportation needs, like those found in the
hierarchy of needs put forth by humanistic psychologists (Maslow, 1943a, 1943b;
Alderfer, 1974), exists. Once it has been proven that there is a hierarchy of
transportation needs, with some needs being placed higher into the hierarchy than
others, the framework will be in place to model the multi-modal LOS according to needs
for all modes.
The importance of this type equivalent type of measurement is discussed in-depth in the
predecessor to the current research report Assessing Level of Service Equally Across
Modes (Winters, Cleland, Mierzejewski, and Tucker, 2001). It is hard to understand LOS
across several modes because each mode assesses LOS differently. And thus, it is
difficult for transportation professionals to navigate among measurements and
assessments of LOS between modes.
Level of Service (LOS) is a measure that describes the operational conditions within a
traffic stream, generally in terms of travel time, speed, freedom to maneuver, traffic
interruptions, comfort and convenience (HCM, 2000). There are currently six letter
grades from A to F that describe the LOS of a roadway facility, with “A” indicating the
highest standard and “F” representing the worst. In the Florida Department of
Transportation’s (FDOT) 2002 Quality/Level of Service Handbook, LOS for auto, transit,
pedestrian, and bicycle modes are based on a variety of criteria and are not calculated
on a comparable scale. Automobile LOS is determined by using average stopped delay
for intersections, average speed for arterials, and density for freeway segments. Bicycle
LOS is measured by roadway conditions, bicycle facilities, and perceived safety and
comfort. Transit LOS measurements are based upon frequency of service and delay
compared to single occupancy vehicle (SOV) service; pedestrian LOS is determined in
much the same manner as bicycle LOS.
An “F” for Automobile LOS means heavy congestion and slow moving traffic. An “F” for
Bicycle LOS means serious personal peril for the bicyclist due to safety concerns or lack
of facilities. Current classification methodologies make it impossible to quantify the
differences between Automobile, Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit LOS. It is important to
develop a system that is standard across all modes so that everyone can understand
what an “A” means and what an “F” means, regardless of transportation mode.
LOS is largely associated with assessing the capacity of roadways for motor vehicles.
Bicycle and pedestrian LOS are based on comfort and safety measurements, and transit
LOS measurements are based upon frequency of service and delay compared to single
occupancy vehicle (SOV) service. Some stakeholders in the previous study claimed that
too much emphasis has been placed upon automobiles and too little emphasis has been
placed upon transit, bike, and pedestrian modes. In the Winters et al. (2001) report, it
was agreed that it is possible to measure LOS equally across modes, that LOS could be
calculated for all modes, and that LOS should be based upon user perception instead of
traffic flow or congestion ratings. The positives of pursuing multi-modal LOS systems
1
are that it makes it easier to for the general population to understand LOS ratings,
provides consistency in ratings, it is more environmentally sensitive and balanced, and it
should inform developers of how to design more livable communities.
Many assessments were considered in the Winters et al. (2001) assessment study, such
as a weighted slide rule, community-standard-based measurement, sensory options, the
Modified Miami Method, and the Icon method. All had both favorable and unfavorable
characteristics in assessment of LOS across modes. However, the researchers
concluded that the current LOS measurement methods make the roadway facility
performance and multimodal tradeoff decisions difficult to measure based upon the
current methodology. Therefore, the researchers hypothesized that transportation
system users may have a hierarchy of needs common to all modes. This hypothesized
hierarchy of needs idea is based upon the humanistic theories of Abraham Maslow
(1943). Maslow’s hierarchy states that once a person has met his/her most basic, lowerlevel needs, then he/she begins to consider higher level needs. For instance, if a
potential transit user feels safer from physical harm on one route versus another, it
wouldn’t matter if the route that made the person feel less safe was more convenient
than the route that made the person feel safer. The transit user will choose the route
which makes him/her feel safer.
In what follows, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and Alderfer’s Existence, Relatedness and
Growth (ERG) Theory were examined. Next, the possibility that needs theories have
motivated mode choice in the past was explored within the existing transportation
literature. Finally, an experiment was conducted to empirically test if such a hierarchy of
transit needs actually exists.
1.2 Contents of This Report
This report contains the outcomes and theories based upon humanistic research
motivation studies from the past three decades, in particular, those motivation theories
put forth by both Maslow (1967) and Alderfer (1972, 1985). These theories are usually
referred to as Hierarchy of Needs theories in the psychological literature. In particular,
Alderfer (1972, 1985) defines three levels in his Hierarchy of Needs: Existence,
Relatedness, and Growth (ERG). Existence needs are defined by attributes of survival,
such as eating and sleeping, as well as safety needs, such as being safe from harm in
your every day life. Relatedness needs are defined as self-esteem needs and the need
to have fulfilling and enriching relationships with people, as well as being safe from
damage to the self-esteem in said relationships and encounters with others. Growth
needs are defined as higher level attributes such as the altruistic desire to help the
environment by riding a bike and reducing vehicle emissions.
In the first part of the report, the ERG theory by Alderfer (1972, 1985) and other
motivation theories are examined and applied within a transportation framework. These
motivation theories will be used to provide a multi-modal measurement of LOS, so that
all modes of transportation can be equivalently measured and understood within the
same framework. Then, the methodologies and development of this study are examined
and described. The results and conclusions of this study are presented with a
discussion of the implications on what applying these motivations to mode choice could
mean. Finally, future research ideas are discussed based upon the results of this study.
2
2. Literature Review
The psychological underpinnings that motivate mode choice have been carefully
examined in a variety of research studies (Seethaler and Rose, 2003; Thomas, 2003;
Ulleberg, 2004). Thomas (2003) investigated the psychological factors that motivate
people to choose to fly with particular airlines. In his review, Thomas asserts that people
are more likely to choose particular airlines if these airlines are advertised as giving
people a sense of social belonging. Further, in a special issue of Community
Transportation published in the Summer of 2004 (Wilson, 2004), Amtrak’s usage of MTV
to promote feelings social belonging amongst teens and college students, was
discussed as an example of a good marketing strategy in attracting new demographic
groups. It is suggested by both of the studies that airline and bus advertisements that
encourage passengers to use that particular mode to reconnect with family members are
most likely to encourage people to use that mode. In these studies, the psychological
factor of “social belongingness” motivates mode choice with respect to flying or riding the
bus. That is, it has been found that people are attracted to mode choices to reconnect
with or to please their family members and also to feel connected with the young, “hip”
crowd.
The outcomes of the studies detailed above have revealed that psychology often can
serve as an explanation for why riders are motivated to use particular transportation
modalities. From this, it reasonable to conclude that psychology also may be used as a
predictor to determine which modality a rider will try and adopt in the future. For this
reason, the continued examination of psychological factors is critical to transportation
research.
In this study, a set of psychological principles that has been relatively unexplored within
the domain of transportation research was examined: The humanistic hierarchy of
needs theories. Needs theories have been explored relative to motivations behind a
variety of topics including, but not limited to the influence of choice on team performance
(Peters, 1997), employee productivity (Ajila, 1997) and the development of small
countries (Hagerty, 1999). However, needs theories have not been examined with
respect to the psychological motivations of mode choice.
2.1 Needs Theories
Theorists in the area of psychology have long been interested in the possibility of
explaining human motivation for particular behaviors and the motivators of choice. Two
such theorists have given this topic a great deal of consideration: Abraham Maslow and
Clayton Alderfer. In what follows, the theories developed by both Maslow and Alderfer
are detailed. Maslow’s theory of human motivation is discussed first and then Alderfer’s
Existence, Relatedness and Growth Theory is presented as a more modern perspective.
2.1.1 Maslow’s Theory of Human Motivation
Abraham Maslow proposed that human behavior could be explained by the process of
satisfying needs (Maslow, 1943a; Maslow, 1948b). He detailed a hierarchy of specific
needs: physiological, safety, belongingness, esteem and self actualization needs
(Maslow, 1948a; Maslow, 1955). His hierarchy often has been depicted as a pyramid.
The base of this pyramid is comprised of the most basic and primitive needs,
physiological and safety needs. Belongingness, esteem and self-actualization needs
3
comprise the upper levels of the pyramid. For this reason, basic needs are often referred
to as “lower level” needs whereas less basic needs, such as self-actualization and selfesteem, have been referred to as “upper level” needs.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Challenging projects. Opportunities for
innovation and creativity
Need for SelfActualization
Important projects. Recognition of
strength-intelligence. Status. Prestige.
Need for Self-Esteem
Acceptance. Group membership. Love
and affection.
Social Needs- Belonging
Physical safety. Economic security.
Freedom from threats. Comfort.
Need for Safety and Security
Water. Food. Sleep. Health
Physical Survival Needs
Figure 1. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Maslow postulated that humans are motivated to satisfy lower level needs like
physiological and safety needs before higher level needs such as belongingness,
esteem and self-actualization (Maslow, 1956). Understanding which needs must be
satisfied first can help explain human behavior. For example, if a human was both thirsty
and lonely this individual would likely seek water before friendship. The behavior could
be explained by the idea that physiological needs are the most basic and, therefore,
need to be satisfied first. To understand how Maslow’s hierarchy of needs can potentially
motivate mode choice, one must first come to understand each specific need in detail. In
what follows, each of Maslow’s needs is explored.
2.1.1a Physiological Needs
The lowest level of Maslow’s hierarchy is comprised of physiological needs (Maslow,
1954). Physiological needs are biologically motivated and include the need for oxygen,
food, water, constant body temperature and sleep (Maslow, 1943b). When our
physiological needs are not met, we experience physical discomfort. For example, when
a human is deprived of water, he/she experiences the bodily discomfort of thirst.
Humans are motivated to alleviate physical discomfort to return to a more pleasant
physical state. The thirsty human is motivated to find water and drink. The human’s
behavior of water-seeking stems from his/her physiological need.
Maslow believed that humans would consider the alleviation of physical discomfort to be
a priority amongst all other needs. Humans would not be motivated to satisfy other
needs until physiological needs had been met. For example, if the thirsty person in our
example also needed the safety of shelter, the search for water would continue to be a
priority until the lower level need to quench thirst was satisfied. The need for safety and
security would take a back seat to the homeostatic need to maintain hydration.
4
2.1.1b Safety Needs
Once physiological needs have been satisfied, the next level of the hierarchy is
comprised of safety needs. Safety needs help humans achieve stability in the
environment by keeping them out of danger (Maslow, 1943b). Humans can experience
safety if they are protected from the elements, live in a secure area and live in an
environment in which laws and limits are respected. When a thirsty human drinks water,
he/she can turn his/her attention toward finding shelter from the elements, thus fulfilling
the need for safety.
According to Maslow, if security is threatened, needs that are higher up the pyramid will
not receive attention. The person without shelter is expected to engage in a shelterseeking behavior until his/her safety need is satisfied. His/her behavior originates from
the basic need for safety. Higher level needs will be attended to only when the need for
safety has been resolved. For example, if the person seeking shelter also is in need of
friendship, shelter seeking (a lower level need) will continue to be a priority until a shelter
is found because friendship would fulfill a higher level need.
2.1.1c Belongingness Needs.
If physiological and safety needs are met, humans can focus their attention on higher
levels of Maslow’s hierarchy. The next level up in the hierarchy of needs is
belongingness. Belongingness needs relate to our social interactions (Maslow, 1943b).
These can include the sense of loving and being loved, the sense of belonging, the
sense of acceptance from others and the sense of not being lonely or alienated from
society. When a person is able to find water and shelter, his/her physiological needs are
satisfied. If he/she needs a sense of friendship, he/she will be motivated to come out of
isolation and spend time with others. This motivation is born out of the need for
belongingness.
When people are able to experience belongingness, they can move on to higher level
needs. The person who finds the comfort of friends and experiences an emergence from
isolation will behave in a way that will help him/her reach higher level needs. These new
behaviors that the person exhibits will lead the way to higher level esteem and selfactualization needs.
2.1.1d Esteem Needs
According to Maslow, when the more basic physiological, safety, and belongingness
needs are fulfilled, humans then experience motivation to fulfill higher level needs
(Maslow, 1943b). Esteem needs are the second to highest level of the hierarchy.
Esteem needs can be classified into two groups: internal and external.
Internal esteem needs include attaining self respect and achievement. External needs
include attaining a high social status, positive recognition, attention, and a good
reputation. The person who is able to satisfy thirst, find shelter, and experience
friendship from others may be motivated to behave in a way that satisfies needs for
esteem. For example, if this person had always wanted to learn how to play the violin,
he/she might enroll in music lessons. Enrolling in such lessons will satisfy internal
esteem needs because the person may be able to experience the achievement of
learning to play an instrument. If a person wanted for others to perceive him/her as an
altruistic person, he/she might engage in volunteering behaviors. Volunteering would
serve to satisfy an external need because he/she may receive positive recognition and a
good reputation by engaging in such behaviors.
5
Maslow suggests that once esteem needs are met, humans are motivated to turn their
attention to the highest level of the needs hierarchy, self-actualization. Once the person
in the previous example has fulfilled his/her needs for internal and external esteem and
all other basic needs, he/she may turn his/her attention to very high level needs that
have not been met due to the demand of the lower level needs on his behavior.
2.1.1e Self Actualization Needs
When all lower level needs are satisfied, humans may experience the highest level
need, that of self-actualization. Self-actualization is marked by the desire to realize one’s
highest potential (Maslow, 1950; Maslow, 1967). People who are motivated to selfactualize seek things like truth, knowledge, peace, wisdom, and justice. Maslow believed
that humans could never completely fulfill their self-actualization needs. In addition, he
believed that relatively few people ever find themselves in a position to self-actualize
because most are working on the fulfillment lower level needs. If the person is able to
behave in a way that fulfills all lower level needs, he/she may modify his/her behavior to
begin self actualizing. To self-actualize, perhaps this person would study and become an
expert. These types of behaviors would bring the person closer to reaching his/her fullest
potential.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has received much attention in the area of psychology.
Theorists have analyzed and assessed each need in a variety of settings. It has become
clear that Maslow was correct in asserting that some needs could take precedence over
others (Alderfer, 1972, 1985). Certainly, the need to satisfy physiological thirst is a much
more basic motivator than reaching one’s highest potential by engaging in selfactualization. However, what is not clear is whether Maslow’s hierarchy motivates
behavior in the exact order that Maslow has specified level for level. For example, it is
reasonable to question whether humans always behaviorally give preference to thirst, a
physiological need, before shelter from the elements, a safety need. Consider a situation
in which a tornado is coming towards an individual. This approaching tornado is
threatening the individual’s safety needs. Consider further, however, that this individual
is also thirsty, a threat to a physiological need. The individual would probably seek
shelter from the storm to deal with the present danger of a tornado, satisfying a safety
need, rather than putting his/her head out in the rain for a drink of water to satisfy his/her
more basic physiological need. In this example, the need for safety is given precedence
over the need to satisfy physiological thirst. This is not the specific order of behaviors
that Maslow proposed.
Maslow asserted that physiological needs would take precedence over needs for safety.
Despite this, it seems reasonable to think that behaviors satisfying safety needs would
be expressed before those satisfying physiological needs in this project. From this
example, it becomes clear that perhaps behavior cannot be specifically predicted from
levels of Maslow’s hierarchy, particularly when those levels are close to one another in
the hierarchy. For levels that are close, like those representing safety and physiological
needs, perhaps there really is no predicable precedence for either motivator.
For the above reasons, it has been rather difficult for psychologists to test Maslow’s
hierarchy empirically. To deal with this dilemma, modern theorists have come up with
slight modifications to Maslow’s hierarchy. These modifications give Maslow’s hierarchy
more flexibility for explaining human behavior. One such modern theorist is Clayton
Alderfer.
6
In the previous study by Winters et al. (2001), a Transportation System User Hierarchy
of Needs was postulated, consisting of five levels of needs: safety and security (the
most basic needs), time, social acceptance, cost, and comfort and convenience. The
traveler’s safety and security is considered the most basic need in this particular
hierarchy.
Transportation Hierarchy of Needs, based on Maslow
Better travel experience. Comfort. More
reliability. Easy access.
Comfort &
Convenience
Best value. Fixed (vehicle, insurance) and
variable (gas, care, tolls, parking).
Cost
Acceptance. Personal and peer/society
attitudes toward modes (for or against).
Societal Acceptance
Trip efficiency. In-vehicle time. Waiting
time. Transfers. Walk time. Trip chaining.
Time
Personal safety. Security for personal
property. Familiarity with route, mode and
destination.
Safety and Security
Figure 2. Transportation Hierarchy of Needs Source: (Winters et al., 2001)
The hierarchy levels suggested in Figure 2 are very similar to the ones in Maslow’s
hierarchy. However, it is suggested that this hierarchy, modeled after Maslow’s (1943a,
1943b), be modified once more to reflect Alderfer’s Existence, Relatedness, and Growth
(ERG) Theory of Needs. The next section describes Alderfer’s ERG theory and how it
has been operationalized in an industrial/organizational setting (Alderfer, 1969), whereas
Maslow’s Hierarchy has not.
2.1.2 Alderfer’s Existence, Relatedness and Growth Theory
Like many theorists of his time, Clayton Alderfer could see shortcomings in Maslow’s
hierarchy (Schneider and Alderfer, 1973). Maslow’s hierarchy was not easily applied to
the real world. As a graduate student, Alderfer searched for a way to make Maslow’s
hierarchy more useful for empirical research.
To give Maslow’s hierarchy more utility, Alderfer modified Maslow’s theory and
developed a new perspective called the ERG Theory (Alderfer, 1967; Alderfer, 1972;
Alderfer, 1985). Alderfer chose to name the theory ERG to represent Existence,
Relatedness and Growth. According to Alderfer, the existence, relatedness and growth
categories of the ERG Theory were more appropriate than the levels of Maslow’s
hierarchy to describe human behavior. According to the ERG theory, focusing
exclusively on one need at a time will not effectively motivate changes in behavior.
Alderfer’s theory influenced this study more than Maslow’s theory because Alderfer’s
theory has been empirically tested and provided a framework for empirically testing a
7
hierarchy via stated preference, whereas Maslow’s did not offer any of these
advantages. Maslow’s hierarchy, stating that humans will choose physiological needs
over safety needs, is not supported by Alderfer’s research. For example, a person
would not select getting a drink over seeking shelter during a thunderstorm (1972, 1985).
Additionally, Alderfer had effectively reduced the number of hierarchy levels from five to
three, simplifying the structure of any comparisons between hierarchy levels. In what
follows, the hierarchy of needs that Alderfer presented are examined in detail.
There are several key differences with Maslow. ERG accounts for differences in need
preferences between cultures as the order of needs can be different for different people.
As the example above illustrated, Alderfer’s theory provides more flexibility that allows
for a wider range of observed behaviors. He also acknowledges that if a higher-order
need is frustrated, an individual may regress to increase the satisfaction of a lower-order
need which appears easier to satisfy.
2.1.2a Existence
Alderfer used the term Existence to describe the general human concern with primary
material existence requirements. The term Existence is used to encompass Maslow’s
physiological and safety needs. Alderfer believed that basic existence requirements such
as the need for oxygen, food, water, constant body temperature, sleep, protection from
the elements, and a secure living area all were needs that existed on the same level.
Threats to these types of needs were presumed to be addressed first behaviorally.
Already, one can see that Alderfer’s description of the needs hierarchy is more flexible
than that of Maslow’s. Alderfer’s hierarchy allows for a situation in which a man would
seek shelter from a tornado before finding a glass of water to satisfy his thirst. Both the
safety need for shelter and the physiological need for water are in the same existence
level, according to Alderfer, so either could motivate behavior first. Once the existence
needs are satisfied, Alderfer believed that humans can move on to the next level of his
hierarchy, relatedness needs.
2.1.2b Relatedness
Alderfer used the term Relatedness to describe the human desire for maintaining
interpersonal relationships. The term Relatedness encompasses Maslow’s
belongingness and esteem needs such as loving and being loved, the sense of
belonging, the sense of acceptance from others and the sense of not being lonely or
alienated from society. Additionally, relatedness includes attaining self respect,
achievement, high social status, positive recognition and a good reputation. Again, it can
be seen that Alderfer has created a very general category of needs when compared to
Maslow’s hierarchy. Here, either belongingness or self esteem needs can take
precedence at one time or another. Alderfer believed that humans would be motivated to
go on and satisfy higher level needs only when relatedness needs had been satisfied.
2.1.2c Growth
Alderfer used the term Growth was used to describe the innate desire for personal
development. The term Growth encompassed self actualization. According to Alderfer,
Growth is considered to be the highest level need. This would include things like the
desire to realize one’s highest potential and to seek things like truth, knowledge, peace,
wisdom and justice.
As one can see, Alderfer had created a hierarchy, much like Maslow’s. The difference
between the two was that Alderfer’s hierarchy was less specific and therefore more
8
flexible. Alderfer found that ERG theory was useful in applied settings, particularly
business settings (Alderfer, Kaplan, Smith, 1974). Alderfer’s ERG theory would lend
itself much more easily to empirical research. And, as specified above, it is easier to test
for the existence of three more general versus five more specific hierarchy levels.
2.2 Defining the Characteristics of Both Hierarchy of Needs and LOS for Each
Mode
The next process in the study involved searching all pertinent LOS literature for each
mode and to defining a specific methodology for the calculation of each type of LOS that
could be linked to the ERG hierarchy. For each mode, it was important to recognize the
important elements of defining LOS. From that point, each of the characteristics which
were identified for each mode was placed into a discrete category, either Existence,
Relatedness, or Growth.
In the pertinent studies (Landis, Vattikuti, Ottenberg, Petritsch, Guttenplan & Crider,
2001; Steiner, Landis, Vattikuti, Miller, 2002), it was found that pedestrian LOS could be
defined by personal safety, personal security, architectural interest in surroundings,
pathway or sidewalk shade, pedestrian scale lighting and amenities, presence of other
pedestrians, closeness of buildings and structures to the walk area, and conditions at
intersections. Pedestrians actually defined a safe walking environment by the presence
of a sidewalk, lateral separation from motor vehicle traffic, barriers and buffers between
pedestrians and motor vehicle traffic, motor vehicle volume, motor vehicle travel speed.
Researchers found that cyclists defined safety in much the same way as pedestrians
(Guttenplan, Landis, Crider, & McLeod, 2001; Guttenplan, Davis, Steiner, & Miller,
2003). Cyclists defined LOS by the presence of a bike lane or paved shoulder, their
proximity to motorized vehicles, motorized vehicle volume and speed, the percent and
number of large or heavy vehicles, pavement condition, and percent of on-street parking.
Transit Level of Service (Transit LOS) key factors include service frequency, span of
service (i.e., how many hours of the day that service is provided), pedestrian crossing
difficulty, obstacles to transit stops, and sidewalk connection to transit stop (Guttenplan
et al., 2001; Guttenplan et al., 2003). Further, Guttenplan et al. (2003) have suggested
an area wide methodology for determining Multimodal LOS:
1. Define major modal facilities;
2. Establish service areas by mode;
3. Determine percentage of households and employment within the user service
area by modal facility;
4. Determine the LOS for each mode on each facility;
5. Determine length-weighted average LOS for each of the modes;
6. Compare average modal LOS with the percentage of households and
employment located within the user service area;
7. Report the adjusted area wide LOS for each mode.
Some transit systems include exclusive Right Of Way (ROW) facilities, such as Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT) or light rail. Both of these types of transit systems have simple
route structure, frequent service, less frequent stops, level boarding and alighting, colorcoded vehicles and stations/stops, ROW signal priority, exclusive lanes, modern vehicle
interiors, high-capacity vehicles, multiple door boarding and alighting, off-vehicle fare
payment, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)/Advanced Public Transportation
9
Systems (APTS) on vehicles and at stations, and coordinated land use planning (Baltes,
2003).
Further, researchers have defined certain multimodal characteristics that make travelers
feel safer in their environment. The first of these is the feeling of ownership; an
environment that appears that it belongs to someone and is well-maintained feels safer
than one which appears abandoned. In addition, facilities should appear to support
transit stops, bike facilities, and pedestrian facilities, as well as accommodating personal
vehicle travel. For example, a transit hub should be designed in the middle of a busy,
well-populated area, such as a mall. That is, land use and function must be
complementary. All transit stops, bicycle facilities and pedestrian facilities should have
good visibility, to both users and observers, with a lack of hedges and foliage that would
obscure views. All multimodal facilities should support mobility, the freedom of
movement to avoid unsafe or threatening situations. Transit stops should not be walled
in against an alley or contain any elements which prohibit freedom of movement.
Finally, facility users need to know where they are going and need to have facilities with
easy readability. Transit facilities should be color coded and well marked. Bike lanes and
pedestrian facilities should be set apart from motor vehicle facilities and there should be
an obvious separation between the two. Construction zones on highways should have
very easy readability in marking the new “under construction” path through cones and
barriers (Vogel & Pettinari, 2002).
In line with the position of Alderfer (1972, 1985), safety issues were listed most
frequently by travelers, whether they use their car, transit, walk, or bicycle to their
destinations. However, it is also important to ascertain other qualities which travelers
might find important in a multi-modal environment and to place them into their proper
position on the ERG hierarchy. Previous customer satisfaction surveys that were
conducted by the Center for Urban Transportation Research reinforce these conclusions
(Cleland & Thompson, 2001; Baltes, 2003; Tucker & Perone, 2003). A composite of the
result of these transit surveys shows that customers were most concerned about the
following areas:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Safety walking/biking to the bus/waiting for the bus/riding the bus/walking from
the bus stop.
Concerns about other passengers
Concerns about being able to use the system easily and efficiently
Concerns about crime around bus stops
Personal image concerns.
Terrorism concerns
General safety concerns
Weather
Wait and travel times
Unsafe distances between transit stop and roadway.
Availability of seats on bus/comfort
Dependability, reliability of buses.
Travel time on buses
Hours, frequency, and span of transit service.
Availability of information/maps.
Convenience of routes.
Cost of riding transit.
10
In those same surveys, participants made the following suggestions for improving
security as well as bus service in general:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Increase marketing and improve public relations;
Separate and safer pedestrian and bicycle facilities;
Special event/cultural center transportation;
Increase availability of route and schedule information;
Feeder services;
Increase frequency of service;
Improve lighting at bus stops;
Security cameras on buses;
Security personnel on buses; and,
Increase police presence/monitoring of bus stops
As can be seen from the previous lists and discussion, most of the travel needs revolve
around safety issues, with a few higher order needs thrown in. From this literature
review, it could be concluded that safety and security issues are probably the most
important and pervasive of all the needs in transportation. They are the bottom rung of
the transportation hierarchy and will comprise the Existence needs rung of the ERG
hierarchy which will be tested in this research. Relatedness is the next highest rung on
Alderfer’s ERG ladder and deals with the sense of belonging and needs like loving and
being loved, the sense of belonging. According to Alderfer (1969), the term Relatedness
encompasses Maslow’s belongingness and esteem needs. Relatedness includes
belongingness needs such as loving and being loved, the sense of belonging, the sense
of acceptance from others and the sense of not being lonely or alienated from society.
So, Relatedness in the hierarchy would include things like personal image concerns,
worrying if those who are significant in your life approve of your choices, wondering if
you fit into and with the people in the various environments encountered in your day to
day life.
Relatedness needs will be discussed in the next section as a part of what motivates
people to use certain modes in their commutes. The following section will first introduce
principles of persuasion in transit as conceptualized by Seethaler and Rose (2003) and
then there will be a discussion of the Theory of Planned behavior and how it affects
behavior on the middle rung of Alderfer’s ERG hierarchy.
2.3 Psychological Needs and Transportation Choice
The purpose of the literature review of both Needs Theories and LOS was to shed light
on how characteristics of roadways and other facilities are both graded and perceived. It
is important to understand that every characteristic of a roadway, bike, transit, or
pedestrian facility is linked in some way to needs that travelers have. Currently, Levels
of Service of roadways for motor vehicle use are calculated using a percentage of
capacity versus congestion, not necessarily safety or security issues. This was one of
the problems in trying to compare roadways to other mode facilities, that all of the other
mode facilities’ LOS grades were linked more to safety and security than using one’s
own personal vehicle (Winters et al., 2001). People traveling in single occupancy
vehicles (SOVs) seem to feel less vulnerable to a myriad of troubles that they may
experience using all other transportation modes. Therefore, it seems that it is not the
11
transit, pedestrian, or bicycle LOS that needs to be converted to reflect “needs theories”
as auto LOS. Researchers have begun to examine the psychological motivations of
transit choice. In review of these studies, it has become clear that need theories can
already explain transit choice. For example, Seethaler and Rose (2003) highlighted six
psychological principles of persuasion that relate to travel behavior and change. These
principles, including reciprocation, commitment or consistency, social proof, liking,
authority and scarcity, seem to fit well with the theories of Abraham Maslow and Clayton
Alderfer.
In review of research by Seethaler and Rose (2003), it becomes clear that the principles
of persuasion used to describe mode choice may have origins that are explained by
needs theories. What would be most interesting is information on which of these
persuasion principles is most effective in changing transit behavior. It seems likely that
those principles which originate from lower level needs, scarcity for example (that is
presumed to originate from existence /physiological needs), would have a greater effect
on changing transit behavior than those that originate from needs higher up on the
hierarchy like the commitment-consistency mechanism (that is presumed to originate
from relatedness/belongingness and relatedness/esteem needs). Unfortunately,
Seethaler and Rose did not address these issues.
The application of needs theory does not only extend to transit and psychology studies.
It extends to non-psychological work as well. For example, Landis, Vattikuti, & Brannick
(1997) developed a statistically calibrated model of bicyclist LOS. These researchers
found that pavement-surface conditions and striping of bicycle lanes correlate with the
ranking of bicycle LOS. When striping is taken away from bicycle lanes, perhaps some
drivers do not recognize these lanes as bicycle lanes. In the reported study, lanes that
had a stripe had LOS scores that were up to 40% higher than those that did not. When
pavement-surface conditions are poor, perhaps cyclists felt more prone to having
crashes.
How can these results be further interpreted within the context of needs theory? Perhaps
these results indicate that LOS ratings are determined in part by whether various needs
are threatened. Perhaps changes to bike lanes that threaten personal safety, for
example, would result in very poor LOS scores by cyclists. Conversely, perhaps
changes to bike lanes that threaten self esteem and self actualization needs would not
elicit such poor LOS scores. These factors seem to have origins that can be explained
by needs theory.
2.4 The Role of Motivational Factors in Mode Choice
While the principles of persuasion have not yet been tested empirically in transit, the
Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) has been tested extensively for transit mode choice
(Bamberg & Schmidt, 1998, 2003; Bamberg, Rolle, & Weber, 2003). TPB (Ajzen, 1991)
stipulates that when people are confronted with the need to decide a course of action,
they consider all likely consequences of available alternatives (behavioral beliefs), weigh
the normative expectations of important reference individuals or groups (normative
beliefs), and then consider required resources and potential obstacles (control beliefs) in
fulfilling their course of action (Bamberg & Schmidt, 2003). These considerations result
in the formation of attitudes toward the behavior of interest (behavioral beliefs),
subjective norms with respect to the behavior (normative beliefs), and perceived
12
behavioral control (control beliefs). TPB assumes that people form behavioral intentions
based on their own attitudes, subjective norms, and perceptions of behavioral control.
TPB assumes that when an individual is confronted with a choice between two
behavioral alternatives, the individual will select the alternative associated with the most
positive behavioral consequences.
The study by Bamberg & Schmidt (2003) had 608 students complete a commute diary
for 8 working days. Subjects were assessed on various key components of TPB, such
as behavioral beliefs, normative beliefs, and control beliefs. For example, questions
such as “When I use the car/transit/bicycle for university routes next time, most people
who are important to me would support this,” and “Using the car for university routes
next time would be (easy/difficult) for me,” respectively, to assess normative and control
beliefs. In their study, the relationships between attitude, subjective norm, and
perceived behavioral control explain 60 percent of the variance in intention to use a
certain transportation mode.
TPB and the six principles of persuasion also address the role that habit plays in mode
choice. Most people have a certain habit of mode choice and only when there is a
change of environment, when goals change, or when new goals are adopted is there the
chance to change habits. In the face of changed employment status or changed
residence, for example, people would be more amenable to changing modes (Bamberg,
Rolle & Weber, 2003). In their study in which they offered a free transit pass to people
who were moving to a different community, they found that attitude, subjective norm, and
perceived behavioral control accounted for 67 percent of variance in intention to perform
the behavior. They also found that TPB accurately predicted intentions to use public
transit and the actual use of public transit.
13
14
3. Empirical Testing of ERG in Transportation
3.1 Existence Issues
There are three levels of elements in any transportation mode. The first level deals with
existence issues, such those related to safety and security, as well as wait time and
comfort. These needs address such issues as worry about going out at night, waiting for
the train at night or in a vacant area, driving alone at night or in a deserted area, being
the victim of a crime while accessing transit, having shelter from the elements, having
proper shelter from the elements, being able to sit while waiting, having good lighting
and line of sight in the transit stop area, multimodal safety of intersections and areas,
etcetera. Ease of way finding and ease of use of transit system or bike facilities or
pedestrian facilities will also be included in this particular rung. When we feel lost or
unsure of how to proceed, it causes fear and uncertainty and certainly discomfort
(Winters et al., 2001).
Wait time is also included into this particular rung of the hierarchy because wait time on
transit is when people feel most vulnerable to crime. The actual travel time on the transit
vehicle is the shortest perceived time for any transit trip (Li, 2003). Transfer times are
somewhere in between wait time and transit vehicle travel time. Also, people are more
averse to losing time than to losing money in their commute (Leclerc, Schmitt, & Dube,
1995), so a high value is attached to a stable commute travel time.
The main reason that auto travel is so attractive is that while using it, people to attend to
more nontemporal cues than when people are using public transit. People using public
transit are made aware of temporal cues via wait time and the importance of making
their transfers on time. However, walking, as well as cycling causes people to attend to
nontemporal cues as well, such as keeping their balance, posture, maintaining their
vehicle or body position, and watching the roadway environment for their own personal
survival needs (Li, 2003).
3.2 Relatedness Issues
The second rung of the ERG hierarchy is Relatedness needs. This level encompasses
belongingness needs like loving and being loved, the sense of belonging, the sense of
acceptance from others and the sense of not being lonely or alienated from society.
Additionally, Relatedness includes attaining self respect, achievement, high social
status, positive recognition and a good reputation. Some of the principles of persuasion
fit in under this particular rung, such as reciprocity, consistency, social proof, authority,
and liking. Scarcity seems to be more of a lower level need. In the TPB studies by
Bamberg and Colleagues (Bamberg & Schmidt, 1998, 2003; Bamberg, Rolle, & Weber,
2003), it was found that if people thought that their mode choice would be accepted and
approved by others important to them that they had more of an intention to perform the
behavior. That is, if they had the normative belief that this was an acceptable mode
choice to make, they would be more likely to use that particular mode. Further, if the
mode choice is accepted by others, it will heighten the esteem and respect that the
person has for him/herself, especially if the mode is recommended by an authority
figure.
15
In U.S. culture, except in major cities with large public transit systems, the car is the
most acceptable mode. In fact, in the studies listed above, many respondents said that
they would worry about their personal image if they were seen using transit or walking or
riding their bike as opposed to driving an automobile (Tucker & Perone, 2003).
Therefore, only if the desired peer group accepted a certain mode, would it increase the
likelihood that a person would take an alternative mode. Also, if the person felt that he
or she belonged in a particular transportation mode, would the person be encouraged to
use that mode. Otherwise, the person would probably feel that there were too many
obstacles to overcome in order to use the alternative mode (Bamberg & Schmidt, 2003).
3.3 Growth
The final rung of the transportation hierarchy is Growth. As discussed previously, the
term Growth was used to describe the innate desire for personal development. The term
Growth encompassed self actualization. According to Alderfer, Growth is considered to
be the highest level need. This would include things like the desire to realize ones
highest potential and to seek things like truth, knowledge, peace, wisdom and justice.
We will also include such characteristics as cost and convenience into this rung. Cost is
included in this rung because it consistently rated in various satisfaction surveys as
being less important than issues such as safety, security, and comfort (Cleland and
Thompson, 2001; Tucker and Perone, 2003). Environmental concern is also included in
this particular rung. People might choose to use alternative modes such as transit or
biking or walking in order to protect the environment.
16
4. Development of the Questionnaire
This particular area of study is somewhat new in transportation studies. Therefore, a
new methodology had to be developed in order to test the hypothesis that there is a
transportation hierarchy of needs.
The development process started with the
development and definition of transportation attributes to fit Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
for each mode of transportation. As an example, if a person were defining each level of
the hierarchy for transit, then the first level, physical survival needs, would have been
food/water depletion while riding and accessing transit and the second level, need for
safety and security, would be defined by safety and security while traveling to and on
transit. The third level, social belongingness, would be defined by the presence/absence
of peers or adverse parties while traveling to and on transit. The fourth level, selfesteem, was defined as the state of social status, prestige, intelligence, and personal
strength that one would feel while using a transit system. As an example of the fourth
level of Maslow’s hierarchy, it could be said that a young person who does not have a
driver’s license yet might feel more self-esteem, strength, intelligence, and
independence versus a middle-aged person who cannot use his/her driver’s license due
to financial or legal constraints. Finally, the highest level of Maslow’s hierarchy is
considered to be self-actualization. In this case, the attributes of using transit that would
be positive and self-actualizing could be that the person feels a responsibility to use
transit in order to preserve the environment, to reduce congestion, to feel that you have
a higher and more altruistic reason for using transit.
As described in the previous paragraphs, however, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has
never been empirically tested. And, this is a shortcoming that had to be addressed in
the design of this particular study. In searching for options, several studies by Alderfer
(1972, 1985), which had operationalized the ERG hierarchy were identified and the
current study was modeled after these. These modifications of methodology and testing
were a welcome introduction into the study because Alderfer’s studies proved simpler
than Maslow’s Hierarchy and also addressed the shortcomings of Maslow’s theory. In
light of the Alderfer studies (1972, 1985), it was decided that whatever the methodology
used, it should use the ERG theory to test the existence of a hierarchy of needs in
transportation. Additionally, the study by Seethaler and Rose (2003) about principles of
social persuasion, along with the Alderfer (1985) study, and various other stated
preference studies, helped to produce the idea of an on-line stated preference survey. A
stated preference survey was produced with the following testing dyads: existence
versus relatedness; existence versus growth; and relatedness versus growth. In
producing the situations for the survey, we utilized the original Hierarchy of Needs
attributes produced with the Maslow hierarchy design and simply placed each of the
attributes into three categories instead of five.
4.1 Three Levels of Transportation Attributes
As described earlier, the first level of Alderfer’s (1972) ERG theory is Existence.
Existence covers the first two levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: Physiological
Needs and Safety and Security Needs. In terms of transportation needs, the
researchers in this study defined six basic areas which were culled from a literature
review of on-board and telephone surveys for several different transit systems as to
primary and secondary preferences (Cleland & Thompson, 2001; Winters et al., 2001;
17
Baltes, 2003; Perone & Tucker, 2003). The following six categories were placed into the
Existence level of transportation needs, according to the literature review:
•
•
•
•
•
Concern about victimization during travel
Being able to have comfortable accommodations./shelter from the elements
Relative safety of roadway and facilities by mode
Ease of way finding/navigation in the system
Ease of use of transit system, bike facilities, pedestrian facilities, or roadway
The next rung of Alderfer’s hierarchy is Relatedness. Relatedness covers both
relationships and self-esteem in Maslow’s hierarchy. Relatedness was categorized into
the following from the literature review:
•
•
•
Reciprocity, consistency, social proof, authority, and liking
If mode choice is accepted by important others
Belongingness while using a certain transportation mode (Seethaler & Rose,
2003).
The final rung of Alderfer’s hierarchy is Growth and covers Maslow’s self-actualization.
The attributes found in the Growth category are luxury amenities and altruistic behaviors
involving transportation:
•
•
•
•
•
Aesthetic amenities
Cost
Convenience
More altruistic reasons for using a certain mode
Promoting alternative modes to help social justice
From these categories, the dyadic situations comparing Existence, Relatedness, and
Growth were constructed. The first questionnaire consisted of more general situations
and through internal focus groups at CUTR, it was decided that the situations should be
more realistic in order to present more believable situations to participants. The main
point of the questionnaire and the methodology was to cause participants to imagine
themselves in the situations presented in the questionnaire, through imagery and
attitudinal manipulations. The questionnaire was modified according to the results of the
pilot testing as well as the internal focus groups. The next section will explain how the
pilot testing of the original survey influenced the final configuration of the questionnaire.
4.2 Pilot Testing of the Original Questionnaire
The original questionnaire was based upon the Existence/Relatedness,
Relatedness/Growth, and Existence/Growth comparison dyads. In discussing the pilot
results, all questions and expected theoretical answers, as well as aggregate results will
be covered, so that the reader will have an understanding and appreciation of the
evolution of this project.
4.2.1 Participants
The original questionnaire was pilot tested on 10 people who were either CUTR faculty,
students, or staff members. Being that the purpose of the pilot testing was to test the
content of the questionnaire; no demographic data was collected for the pilot testing.
18
4.2.2 Pilot testing results
Most of the Existence versus Relatedness and Existence versus Growth results
confirmed the ERG theory. However, there were many problematic questions in the
Relatedness versus Growth comparison results. These results resulted in researchers
taking a hard look at those questions which defied the ERG theory for the possible
problems with those questions. These six questions comparing relatedness and growth
were closely examined and rewritten for the final questionnaire. Those six questions are
as follows:
4.2.3 Problematic Relatedness versus Growth Questions:
1. You take a bus into work every day. You have a choice of two bus routes.
A: This route is not perceived by your friends as the one that classy people in the town most often
use. However, this route is interesting and beautiful because it passes by some very scenic
neighborhoods.
B: This route is perceived by your friends as the one that classy people in the town most often use.
However, this route is along the backside of row housing and not all that interesting or beautiful.
2. You want to ride a train visit your family. You have a choice of two trains to ride.
A: Your family would prefer that you not take this train. However, tickets to ride this train are a great
price.
B: Your family would prefer that you take this train. However, tickets to ride this train are very
expensive.
4. You would like to take a series of buses to get to a special weekend event taking place in a town
that you have not visited before. You have a choice between two bus lines.
A: You usually like the mix of people on this bus and feel that you fit in. However, you will have to
switch buses twice in order to reach your destination.
B: You usually don’t like the mix of people on this bus and feel that you do not fit in. However, you
will have to switch buses only once to reach your destination.
7. You would like to ride a bike on a 100 mile path. You have a choice between two bikes.
A. This bike was made for two people. You can pick up your friend and you will not have to ride the
path alone. However, this bike has expensive upkeep costs.
B. This bike was made for one person. You cannot pick up your friend and you will have to ride the
path alone. However, this bike is very inexpensive to maintain.
8. You would like to ride a car to the mall. The mall is 10 miles from your house and it is about to
storm.
A. This car has great gas mileage and you will not have to pay much to fill up the tank. However,
many people are not impressed by this car.
B. This car has terrible gas mileage and it is going to cost a fortune for you to fill up the tank.
However, many people are impressed by this car.
9. You would like to walk to the store. You have two paths to choose from.
A. This path would not allow you to walk in front of places where your friends work and you could
not say hello. However, this path would allow you to see beautiful trees and birds. This path is far
more beautiful.
19
B. This path would allow you to walk in front of places where your friends work and you could say
hello. However, this path would not allow you to see beautiful trees and birds. This path is far less
beautiful.
Due to the pilot results from the above questions, it was decided that the situations had
to be more realistic and less generic. For instance, in question 2 of the Relatedness
versus Growth set, the participants don’t know why their parents prefer one train over
the other. All that they know is that they can save money by not choosing the option that
the parents want. It was important to define why and also to make the situations highly
relatable. And, based upon feedback from our 10 pilot participants, many of the
situations did not make sense to them and therefore, they could not imagine themselves
in those situations. All of the loose ends of every one of the questions had to be tied up
for the final version of the questionnaire. The participants could not be left to wonder
about any anomaly in the survey items. In addition, many pilot and focus group
participants claimed that it was very hard to imagine themselves within the simple written
passages and that pictures should also be added to help participants to imagine
themselves in each particular situation.
In many instances on the pilot questionnaire, the Relatedness versus Growth section
results were the exact opposite of what was expected from the ERG theory. In order to
redesign the questionnaire, data was collected on the ‘hows’ and ‘whys’ of the answers.
Data on these issues was collected from both pilot participants and focus group
participants. The focus groups consisted of several CUTR faculty members who had
been asked to take the original pilot test and to comment upon the content and structure
of the questionnaires. The overwhelming majority of the comments from both focus
groups and pilot participants indicated that the item situations were too bland or generic,
as one pilot participant put it, “too vanilla.” Based upon these data, the researchers set
to reconstructing the questions on the same structure of the original item, but with more
believable details.
Overall for the results of the pilot, the mean ratings split for each of the pilot items was
significantly different for six of the Existence versus Relatedness questions, five of the
Existence versus Growth questions, and four of the Relatedness versus Growth
questions. It is important to note that all the Relatedness versus Growth (RG) items with
significant differences have a mean differential that is in the opposite direction than
would be expected by ERG theory. That is, the “RG” means were significantly higher on
the Growth activation choice than the Relatedness activation choice. However, each of
the choice splits match the overall mean of each choice’s rating in that when less people
chose a certain situation option, it also had the lower mean.
All of these issues were weighed and assessed in the development of the final
questionnaire. In this study, it was important to ensure that participants would be able to
relate to the questions and to place themselves into the position of protagonist in each
item. To achieve this goal, a great deal of research was put into developing believable
situations.
In the first Existence versus Relatedness comparison question, there is a passage about
terrorists. The focus group said that they could not relate to terrorist situations on buses,
even though America has been attacked by terrorists. In Israel, it is commonplace for
terrorists to attack mass transportation, such as buses, as well as common gathering
places in the cities. In the United States, we haven’t quite felt the sting of terrorism as an
20
every day event. For the next incarnation of the questionnaire, each of the questions
was analyzed for how they could be made more believable and more relatable. For
example, in question “ER1” a scenario about terrorists and a bus and classy versus nonclassy neighborhoods was presented. However, in focus groups, participants took issue
with the use of the word classy. The participants felt that the word classy was very
subjective and it should be replaced with another word or situation that was more
quantifiable and/or universally understood. In the next reincarnation of item ER1, an
actual scenario about the PATH line, a transit line that runs between New Jersey and
Lower Manhattan replaced the generic, city-less bus line and pressure to help a spouse
replaced the peer pressure from the friend to be classy. Data on the believability of each
situation was not collected in the original pilot data. However, it was important to know
how believable the participants found each situation of the final questionnaire and if this
affected their choice of A or B in the situation and their ranking of A and B.
21
22
5. Methodology of the Final Questionnaire Administration
5.1 Participants and Methodology
The participants in this survey were 138 persons recruited from 1) a psychology course
at Armstrong-Atlantic State University in Savannah, Georgia; 2) a local church; and 3)
people who responded to a request on the University of South Florida Talk Listserv. The
respondents were instructed to access a specific website and then to choose the
number 1, 2, or 3. This choosing allowed a random assignment of each of the
participants to each of the three groups. There were three different versions and the
order of the Existence versus Relatedness (ER), Existence versus Growth (EG), and
Relatedness versus Growth (RG) types of questions were ordered in such a way so that
fatigue effects and order effects could be controlled. That is, in one version of the test,
everything was in straight order, just interspersed. In another version, the questions
went from the “ER10” to “ER1”, with “EG10” to “EG1” and “RG10” to “RG1” interspersed
with them, so that the last questions were first in this version. And, finally, in the third
version of the ordering, the questions were ordered from the middle out.
Participants were presented with a certain scenario and asked which situation they
would choose. The second part of the question was rank Existence, Relatedness, and
Growth variables written to apply to that scenario. The first portion of the item will be
called the ”Dyad comparison” portion and the second portion of the item will be called
the “Triad comparison” portion. These names are given to avoid confusion over the two
ranked portions of each item.
After choosing version 1, 2, or 3 of the questionnaire, the participants were instructed to
answer all of the specified questions by choosing the appropriate radio button for that
item. There were 30 items on the questionnaire and it is listed in its entirety in Appendix
A at the end of this report. As discussed above, there were three separate versions of
the questionnaire, each with a different order to the questions. In an analysis of results
for all 30 items, there is no significant difference when comparing the means of the items
for each different version. This means that the version of test did not influence how
people answered the questions and it also means that order effects and fatigue effects
are not a confounding variable in this study. When the participant had answered all 30
questions, they were instructed to click the “Submit” button at the bottom of the page.
This action sent the final answers of each questionnaire to a database for further
analysis.
5.2 Demographics of Participants
Figure 9 gives the distribution of participants by age and gender. As seen in Figure 9,
the majority of participants were in the 18-24 and 25-34 age groups. Forty-two percent
of the participants were male and 58 percent were female. The majority of respondents
do not have children under the age of 16 years living at home. In addition, the majority
of respondents are white. Almost one-fourth of respondents were Black and another 10
percent were Hispanic. Approximately 40 percent of respondents work full-time, with
another 35 percent who work part-time and approximately one-fourth who do not work at
all. More than 60 percent of the respondents were full-time students and another 15
percent said that they were part-time students.
23
Distribution of respondents by age and gender
30%
20%
10%
0%
under 18 18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75-84
85 plus
P_Age
Gender male
3.45%
25.86%
24.14%
8.62%
13.79%
13.79%
5.17%
5.17%
0.00%
Gender female
6.25%
27.50%
22.50%
10.00%
6.25%
3.75%
5.00%
8.75%
10.00%
Figure 3. Distribution of Participants by age and gender
Distribution of respondents with children under the age of 16
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Children under 16
zero
one
two
three or more
71.74%
12.32%
10.87%
5.07%
Figure 4. Distribution of respondents with children under the age of 16
24
Distribution of respondents by ethnicity
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Ethnicity
white
black
hispanic
other
asian
57.97%
22.46%
9.76%
2.56%
7.25%
Figure 5. Distribution of Participants by ethnicity
Distribution of respondents by work status
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Work status
yes, fulltime
yes, parttime
no
39.86%
35.51%
24.63%
Figure 6. Distribution of respondents by work status
25
Distribution of Participants by Student Status
no
23%
yes, parttime
15%
yes, fulltime
62%
Figure 7. Distribution of respondents by student status
5.3 Current and Past Mode Usage
Background information was collected from each participant on current and past travel
behavior. Responses were neither limited to a particular trip purpose (e.g., commuting)
nor a particular location (e.g., Florida). Almost 30 percent of respondents said that they
currently used transit and out of those, 5 percent said that they currently used local
transit and 2.5 percent said that they currently used paratransit services. Three-fourths
of respondents said that they had used transit in the past and out of these, 27 percent
said that they had used transit in the past, 36 percent said that they had used the bus in
the past and 17 percent said that they had used long distance train in the past. The
majority of the respondents said that they almost never use vanpooling, train, trolley,
walking, or biking. And, approximately 7 percent of respondents said that they rode a
motorcycle or telecommuted several times a week.
Every one of the respondents claimed to have a valid drivers’ license. And, the majority
of respondents also claimed to have one or two cars available in their households. The
average number of cars per each household in this survey was 2.02. In addition, almost
90 percent of respondents said that they drove alone on a daily basis. One-third of
respondents said that they carpooled several times a week. All participants were asked
which mode they used the most for these questions.
26
Number of cars available in your household
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Number of cars
Zero
One
Two
Three
Four or
more
1.45%
28.26%
44.93%
17.39%
7.97%
Figure 8. Number of cars available per respondent household
27
28
6. Results of the Final Questionnaire Administration
As can be seen in Table 1, the majority of results support the ERG theory, that
participants will choose Existence over Relatedness, Existence over Growth, and
Relatedness over Growth. There are some exceptions to this rule and these are very
interesting in the context of the ERG theory and are discussed further in depth in the
“Discussion” in section 7.
Some important points to help the navigation of Table 1 are that the “Item” column refers
for each type of question. Item “ER1” refers to the first question that compares
Existence versus Relatedness and Item “EG1” refers to the first question that compares
Existence versus Growth. The columns labeled “Choice A Ranking” and “Choice B
Ranking” refer to the attractiveness ranking given to each choice after the participant
chose A or B. The attractiveness ranking of each choice was calculated by taking the
mean ranking for each item.
The column referring to “Theoretical
under ERG theory. If the letter listed
listed next to it, this signifies that
outcome in the final administration
theoretically expected.
Choice” gives the choice that would be expected
in the “Theoretical Choice” column has an asterisk
the theoretical choice and the observed choice
of the questionnaire was opposite of what was
The “Significance” column refers to if the means of the attractiveness rankings listed in
columns “Choice A Ranking” and “Choice B Ranking” are significantly different from one
another. If the answer listed under “Significance” is “Yes,” then the mean difference
between the attractiveness rankings for “Choice A Ranking” and “Choice B Ranking” are
significantly different at the p<0.05 level, which is standard in both psychological and
transit research studies and literature.
There are two other columns that begin with Choice A and Choice B and are named
“Choice A Percent” and “Choice B Percent.” These are the columns that designate what
percentage of respondents chose Choice A and Choice B, respectively. For items
“ER1,” “ER2,” “ER4,” “EG1,” “EG7,” “EG8,” “RG3,” and “RG10,” these percentages are
the opposite of what was expected according to ERG theory and this result is also
verified by the asterisk next to the letter in the “Theoretical Choice” column for that item.
In the section of Table 1 that lists the results for the questions that compare Existence
versus Relatedness, 70 percent of items are answered in a way that is consistent with
ERG theory. That is, the majority of respondents chose the item that corresponded to a
preference for fulfilling an Existence issue over a Relatedness issue. The problems with
items “ER1,” “ER2,” and “ER4” are discussed at length in section 7 below. In the section
of Table 1 that lists the results for the items which compare Existence versus Growth
issues, 70 percent of the items are also answered in a way that is consistent with ERG
theory, to fulfill an Existence need over a Growth need. The problematic results for
items “EG1,” “EG7,” and “EG8” are discussed further in section 7 as well. In the section
of Table 1 that lists the results for the questions that compare Relatedness versus
Growth issues, 80 percent of the items are answered in a way that is consistent with
ERG theory, to fulfill a Relatedness need over a Growth need. The problems the results
of two of the items in this section, “RG3” and “RG10” are further discussed as well in the
section 7 below. While there might be concern that only 70 percent of these results the
29
Existence versus Relatedness section, 70 percent in the Existence versus Growth
section, and 80 percent in the Relatedness versus Growth section, these are significant
results. The majority of answers in all comparisons, Existence versus Relatedness,
Existence versus Growth, and Relatedness versus Growth, show evidence for a
hierarchy of transportation needs. The ERG hierarchy does exist in the realm of
transportation.
The final column in Table 1 is the “Believability” rating. As discussed previously, when
the pilot questionnaire was being constructed, there were many comments that the
scenarios needed to be more believable so that people could realistically imagine
themselves in these situations. The overall mean for believability is 3.27. An
independent t-test was run for each item, comparing it with the overall mean of 3.27.
The means that are shown with two asterisks after them are significantly greater than the
overall mean at a p<0.05 level and those means that have one asterisk after them are
significantly lower than the overall mean at a p<0.05 level. Surprisingly, the believability
is significantly above the mean for item “ER1.” So, in this situation it doesn’t seem that
the believability or lack thereof is causing the problematic results. The problematic
results, in which the results show a trend opposite the ERG theory predictions, do not
seem to be a function of problems with believability of the scenario. And, as discussed
in section 8 on modeling of each type (ER, EG, or RG) of scenario, the believability
scores are important in the regression equations.
30
Table 1. Item Rankings
Item
Choice
A
Ranking
Choice
B
Ranking
Theoretical
Choice
Significance
Choice
A
Percent
Choice
B
Percent
Believability
ER1
3.88
2.49
B*
Yes
80%
20%
3.70**
ER2
2.97
3.48
B*
Yes
81%
19%
3.16
ER3
3.95
2.92
A
Yes
89%
11%
2.91*
ER4
2.86
3.76
A*
Yes
30%
70%
3.22
ER5
2.32
4.31
B
Yes
12%
88%
3.57**
ER6
3.07
3.64
B
Yes
36%
64%
3.12
ER7
3.02
3.67
B
Yes
33%
67%
3.35
ER8
3.69
3.10
A
Yes
70%
30%
3.22
ER9
1.62
4.15
B
Yes
24%
76%
3.29
ER10
3.81
2.60
A
Yes
85%
15%
3.54**
EG1
3.51
3.22
B*
No
50%
50%
3.20
EG2
2.50
4.35
B
Yes
11%
89%
3.20
EG3
3.82
2.95
A
Yes
78%
22%
2.49*
EG4
3.43
3.40
A
No
61%
39%
3.33
EG5
2.85
4.04
B
Yes
14%
86%
3.64
EG6
3.51
3.29
B
No
36%
64%
3.25
EG7
3.34
3.62
A*
No
50%
50%
3.17
EG8
2.85
3.96
A*
Yes
27%
73%
3.20
EG9
2.91
3.62
B
Yes
24%
76%
3.30
EG10
3.67
3.20
A
Yes
78%
22%
3.24
RG1
3.66
2.95
B
Yes
43%
57%
2.91*
RG2
3.70
3.62
A
No
80%
20%
3.46
RG3
2.59
3.70
A*
Yes
18%
82%
2.66*
RG4
3.72
3.09
A
Yes
54%
46%
3.30
RG5
3.30
3.81
B
Yes
24%
76%
3.17
RG6
3.79
3.39
A
Yes
66%
34%
3.58**
RG7
3.46
4.14
B
Yes
25%
75%
3.34
RG8
3.35
3.91
B
Yes
13%
87%
3.54**
RG9
3.64
3.10
A
Yes
96%
4%
3.30
RG10
3.33
3.49
A*
No
50%
50%
3.79**
31
6.1 Overall Rankings of Importance of Existence, Relatedness, and Growth for
Each Set of Comparison Questions
In each item, there was a choice between scenario A or B, a ranking of both choice A
and B and a ranking of the importance of an Existence issue, a Relatedness issue, and
a Growth issue on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being least and 5 being most important in
this particular situation. These rankings were inserted into the questionnaire as a type of
double-check of the testing system, to ensure that participants were responding in an
appropriate manner. As an example, Question RG9 is shown below. For brevity, only
the text of this question is shown. The entire questionnaire, including pictures, is
available in Appendix A. A description of the scenario is followed by a choice of A or B,
and the ranking of Choices A and B. Also shown are responses to the three questions
on Existence, Relatedness, and Growth for that particular item.
In the example, the Existence question is “How important is it for you to be safe on your
evening walk?,” the Relatedness question is “How important is it to make your parents
happy with your choice of walking route?,” and the Growth question is “How important is
it to have a scenic route to your destination?” The example of Question 9RG was shown
to help the reader navigate Table 2 and also to understand how these rankings are to
different questions than those listed in Table 1.
It is important to understand that there are comparisons of items via the choice
and rankings of A and/or B in the scenarios and then there are the three simple
questions, asking people how important Existence, Relatedness, and Growth are
to them in that particular scenario. It would have been expected that people ranking
the Existence, Relatedness, and Growth questions in the Existence versus Relatedness
scenarios would have totally ignored the Growth questions and etcetera. However, they
did not ignore those questions and those questions, being that they are simpler, may not
have activated the same problems as the more “realistic” scenarios and, therefore, may
be more valid in establishing the hierarchy of transportation needs.
32
Question RG9
You are going on a walk with your parents down Bayshore Boulevard in Tampa. You have the choice of two
routes. One route is significantly longer than the other route. The shorter route takes you past a vacant lot that
just is so ugly you feel it spoils the walk for you. The longer route has some areas that aren’t as beautiful as you
would like, but not as blighted as you think the vacant lot is. However, your parents do not want to walk two
miles instead of one mile just so that you don’t have to look at the vacant lot. It’s not dangerous, it’s just ugly,
they tell you, and they want to get to beautiful Bayshore more quickly. You know that your parents are capable
of walking the two miles, but it means that they will not be able to enjoy the walk along Bayshore for as long. The
main goal of the walk is to enjoy the beauty of Bayshore. What do you do?
A. You choose to take the route that takes you by the vacant lot, keeping your eyes straight ahead on the
sidewalk and diverting them from the ugly lot. You know that your parents appreciate the fact that you will walk
past a small blighted area in order for your family to get to Bayshore more quickly for your evening walk.
B. You decide that you just can’t deal with that vacant lot and decide to make your parents walk the two
mile route as opposed to the one mile route. Your parents are very unhappy that you are making them waste
time that they could spend walking on Bayshore, walking along the Downtown streets in Tampa and aren’t very
nice company on the walk.
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
1
How important is it to be safe on your evening walk?
2
3
4
5
How important is it to make your parents happy with your choice of walking route?
1
2
3
4
5
1
How important is it to have a scenic route to your destination?
How believable is this scenario?
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
5
5
Figure 9. Listing of Question RG as an Example for Reading Results
6.1.1 Overall Rankings of Importance of Existence, Relatedness, and Growth for
Existence versus Relatedness Comparison Questions
Overall, in the scenarios comparing Existence and Relatedness, participants ranked
Existence significantly higher than Relatedness and Existence significantly higher than
Growth on the five point scale. However, they did not rank the Relatedness significantly
higher than Growth in these scenarios.
33
6.1.2 Overall Rankings of Importance of Existence, Relatedness, and Growth for
Existence versus Growth Comparison Questions
Overall, in the scenarios comparing Existence and Growth, participants ranked
Existence significantly higher than Relatedness, Existence significantly higher than
Growth, and Relatedness significantly higher than Growth.
6.1.3 Overall Rankings of Importance of Existence, Relatedness, and Growth for
Relatedness versus Growth Comparison Questions
Overall, in the scenarios comparing Relatedness and Growth, participants ranked
Existence significantly higher than Relatedness, Existence significantly higher than
Growth, and Relatedness significantly higher than Growth.
Table 2. Overall comparison of secondary Existence, Relatedness, and Growth questions
by item type.
Existence
Relatedness
Growth
Existence
vs.
Relatedness
ER1
4.38
4.23
3.38
No
Yes
Yes
ER2
3.62
4.14
3.36
Yes
Yes
Yes
ER3
4.28
2.44
3.36
Yes
Yes
Yes
ER4
4.20
3.70
3.14
Yes
Yes
Yes
ER5
4.49
3.49
3.64
Yes
Yes
Yes
ER6
4.14
3.30
3.46
Yes
Yes
No
ER7
4.23
3.08
3.13
Yes
Yes
No
ER8
3.87
3.13
3.42
Yes
Yes
Yes
ER9
4.44
2.72
2.96
Yes
Yes
No
ER10
4.52
2.83
2.86
Yes
Yes
No
MEANS ER
4.22
3.31
3.27
Yes
Yes
No
EG1
3.88
3.12
2.88
Yes
Yes
No
EG2
4.24
3.00
3.3
Yes
Yes
Yes
EG3
4.30
2.12
3.07
Yes
Yes
Yes
EG4
3.97
3.64
3.63
Yes
Yes
No
EG5
4.41
2.14
3.49
Yes
Yes
Yes
EG6
4.26
3.43
3.48
Yes
Yes
No
EG7
4.23
2.97
3.52
Yes
Yes
Yes
EG8
4.04
3.65
3.62
Yes
Yes
No
EG9
4.38
2.99
3.02
Yes
Yes
No
EG10
4.56
2.95
2.91
Yes
Yes
No
Item
34
Existence
vs.
Growth
Relatedness
vs.
Growth
MEANS EG
4.23
3.00
3.29
Yes
Yes
Yes
RG1
3.96
3.78
3.14
No
Yes
Yes
RG2
4.32
3.73
2.73
No
Yes
Yes
RG3
4.16
2.33
3.78
Yes
Yes
Yes
RG4
4.18
3.50
4.04
Yes
No
Yes
RG5
4.36
3.15
3.43
Yes
Yes
Yes
RG6
4.32
3.70
3.31
Yes
Yes
Yes
RG7
4.38
4.21
3.46
Yes
Yes
Yes
RG8
3.89
3.12
3.54
No
Yes
Yes
RG9
4.42
4.09
3.21
Yes
Yes
Yes
RG10
4.79
3.30
2.62
Yes
Yes
Yes
MEANS RG
4.28
3.49
3.33
Yes
Yes
Yes
6.2 Three Simple ERG Questions (Triad Comparisons) Compared to Categorical
Existence, Relatedness, and Growth Questions (Dyad Comparisons)
The interesting results from the set of questions that assess Existence, Relatedness,
and Growth are that all results of comparison except for the comparison of questions
ER2B and ER2Existence, ER4B and ER4Relatedness, ER5B and ER5Existence, ER7A
and ER7Relatedness, ER8A and ER8Existence, ER8B and ER8Relatedness, ER10B
and ER10Relatedness, EG2B and EG2Existence, EG3B and EG3Growth, EG6A and
EG6Growth, EG7B and Growth, EG9A and EG9Growth, RG2A and RG2Relatedness,
RG3A and RG3Relatedness, RG5A and RG5Relatedness, RG6A and RG6Relatedness,
RG6B and RG6Growth, RG7B and RG7Relatedness, RG8B and RG8Relatedness,
RG9B and RG9Growth, and RG10B and RG10 Relatedness are significant. That means
that the mean responses of almost all of the Existence, Relatedness, and Growth simple
questions are significantly different from those of the dyad comparison questions.
The above results are very interesting because it could be that the situations and
scenarios in the questions are problematic and that people are choosing Existence over
Relatedness and Growth and Relatedness over Growth if the question is simpler.
Perhaps some of the questions developed from the pilot questionnaire activated too
many variables in the Choice between A or B and also the rankings between Choice A
and B.
6.3 Results by Demographics
6.3.1 Results by Gender
In order to assess overall trends in the data, an ESCORE, RSCORE, and GSCORE
were computed based upon the choice that each person made of either A or B for each
item. When the person made a rating for either A or B, they also made a rating of E, R,
and G for that particular item. Each rating was averaged between genders and these
scores were computed. It was found that there was a significant difference between
genders on the Existence score overall and the Growth score overall. On the whole,
female participants tended to rate Existence (F(1,137) = 25.69, p<0.05) and Growth
(F(1,137) = 12.40, p<0.05) choices higher than their male counterparts.
35
Table 3. Gender difference for ratings of E, R, and G items for first scenario questions
Male
Female
ESCORE
3.37*
3.74*
RSCORE
3.19
3.28
GSCORE
3.11*
3.39*
In addition, a total score was added for the three E, R, and G ratings positioned at the
end of each item, before the believability rating. Further, the E, R, and G ratings were
divided according to which cluster of items they occurred in. Tables 4, 5 and 6 show the
results and the significance of these ratings. An asterisk next to a mean signifies that it
is significantly different from the mean of the other group.
Table 4. Gender differences on Existence Items Overall and by cluster membership
Male
Female
Escore2
4.04*
4.42*
eERscore2
4.06*
4.33*
eEGscore2
4.03*
4.37*
eRGscore2
4.01*
4.57*
Table 5. Gender differences on Relatedness Items Overall and by cluster membership
male
female
Rscore2
3.23
3.31
rERscore2
3.27
3.33
rEGscore2
2.99
2.96
rRGscore2
3.44
3.55
Table 6. Gender differences on Growth Items Overall and by cluster membership
male
female
Gscore2
3.17
3.35
gERscore2
3.09*
3.39*
gEGscore2
3.25
3.32
gRGscore2
3.18
3.35
Overall, in the separate, secondary Existence ratings, females rated the Existence items
as more important over all item clusters (ER, EG, and RG) as more important than
males ranked them. There was no significant difference between males and females on
their ranking of Relatedness secondary items. However, on Growth secondary items,
females ranked Growth characteristics as more important in the ER cluster of Growth
items than males did. As Alderfer assets, clearly the order of needs can be different for
different people as the ER cluster was supposed to cause participants to focus more on
E and R characteristics instead of Growth characteristics.
6.3.2 Results by Ethnicity
There were five demarcated ethnic groups in the study: White, Black, Hispanic, Asian,
and Other. There were no significant differences in the rankings of E, R, and G
characteristics for ranking of choice A or B or of the secondary rankings.
6.3.3 Results by Age Group
There were no significant differences in means on the E, R, and G ratings for either
choices A or B or the secondary ratings between age groups.
36
6.3.4 Results by Number of Children under Age 16 Years
There were no significant differences in means on the E, R, and G ratings for either
choices A or B or the secondary ratings between people with and without children under
the age of 16 years.
6.3.5 Results by Employment and Student Status
Table 7. Ratings of E, R, and G (A versus B) items by employment status
(* signifies significant difference)
Full-time worker
Part-time worker
Non-worker
ESCORE
3.62
3.59
3.54
RSCORE
3.16
3.33
3.24
GSCORE
3.13*
3.38*
3.36*
As can be seen in Table 7, those who either did not work or were part-time workers
scored growth characteristics higher overall in their ratings of A versus B for each item.
Table 8. Ratings of E, R, and G (A versus B) items by employment status
(* signifies significant difference)
Full-time
Part-time Student
Not a student
ESCORE
3.58
3.74
3.50
RSCORE
3.31*
3.15*
3.11*
GSCORE
3.33*
3.02*
3.29*
In Table 8, it can be seen that Part-time students have lower R scores than Full-time
students. Part-time students also have lower G-scores than both Full-time and nonstudents. Overall, part-time students tend to rank R and G characteristics with lower
importance than full-time and non-students.
37
38
7. Discussion
7.1 Discussion of Each Item as a Part of the Hierarchy Theory
As discussed previously, there were two parts of each item. One was asking which
situation they would choose given a certain scenario and the other was just asking for a
simple ranking of Existence, Relatedness, and Growth variables. The first portion of the
item will be called the ”Dyad comparison” portion and the second portion of the item will
be called the “Triad comparison” portion. These names are given to avoid confusion
over the two ranked portions of each item.
Overall, both the scenario comparisons (i.e., Existence versus Relatedness, Existence
versus Growth, and Relatedness versus Growth), or the “Dyad comparison” as well as
the more simple “Triad comparison” ratings in each item prove that there is a hierarchy
of transportation needs much like the one described in the literature by Alderfer (1969,
1972). The Dyad and Triad comparisons each give a differing viewpoint for the results
of the survey. Further, the Triad comparisons may be more informative as to the
existence of the ERG hierarchy, mostly because they are simpler and less vulnerable to
confusions over categorizations of the scenario characteristics.
7.1.1 Existence versus Relatedness
In the Existence versus Relatedness cluster of the questionnaire, questions ER1, ER5,
and ER10 were rated as significantly more believable than the average believability of
that cluster. Question ER3 was rated as significantly less believable than the other
items in this cluster. Question ER1 is particularly interesting because of the fact that
most of the participants decided to choose the Relatedness choice and to help out their
spouse, even though they were imaging themselves as a 9/11 survivor. This finding is
something interesting in that the participants probably made their decision based on a
phenomenon of lightning not striking the same place twice. The analogy is that general
knowledge says that such an unlikely event at the terrorists attacks might happen again,
but not in the exact same place. In addition, in the ER item cluster, most participants
chose relatedness over existence if the related party was a person of authority or a
person of their immediate family, such as a parent or a spouse. In the other questions,
in which the participant is asked to make a choice of existence versus relatedness, the
other party was a friend or a boy/girlfriend and not a permanent part of that person’s
family. In Question ER2, participants chose to accommodate their mother. However,
having to stand for 40 minutes may be a matter more of comfort than survival. There
was some disagreement in the literature about if comfort was a lower or higher level
need. From the results of this survey, there are two options: Either comfort is a Growth
need or people will tend to follow the lead of a permanent and/or authoritative family
member.
Question ER4 shows a pattern of results that was the opposite of what was theorized.
The majority of respondents said that they would rather not be harassed by opposing
fans. This is interesting, because in many studies, people discuss the fear of getting lost
in a novel transit system (Winters et al., 2001). However, an explanation of these results
could be that people do have a fear that harassment could turn into physical danger.
On all other questions, except for ER1, ER2, and ER4, participants answered in a way
that is consistent with the first part of ERG theory, as proposed by Alderfer. People will
39
predominantly choose Existence characteristics over Relatedness characteristics.
However, Alderfer (1985) did not specify about the nature of the relationship in the
decision-making process. The 3 anomalies in this case are explained by the fact that
people don’t expect an unexpected event to occur twice in the same place. Therefore,
they may feel safer in an area in which an event has already occurred. Comfort may be
considered a Growth level characteristic and, if so, participants should have chosen
Relatedness over it. And, finally, it may be that participants are afraid in ER4 that
opposing fans may become physical in their harassment and the physical safety would
take precedence over the ability to successfully navigate the system.
In comparison with the simple triad questions, in item ER1, it was found that the rankings
for Existence were significantly different from the ranking for Choice B, 4.38 versus 2.49.
This means that given the scenario, people chose to help their spouse over worrying
about if terrorists would strike that area again. However, people were significantly more
concerned about their safety given the simple questions than what the Choice dyads
show. In item ER2, it was found that the rankings for Existence in the triad questions
were significantly different from the ranking for Choice B, 3.48 versus 3.62, with the
ranking for “comfort” being significantly higher than the ranking for Choice B. However,
in this instance, people still chose to accommodate their mother than to be comfortable.
So, the analysis of comfort perhaps not being an Existence need stands. In item ER4, it
was found that the rankings for Existence in the triad questions were significantly
different from Choice A, 2.86 versus 4.20. This means that people are concerned about
navigation as well as safety in this instance. This item also has some problems because
of the fact that participants may have read what was meant as a Relatedness choice as
an Existence choice. And, the prospect of being assaulted by opposing fans is more
frightening than the prospect of being lost.
7.1.2 Existence versus Growth
On this particular cluster of items, it would be expected that participants would choose
Existence characteristics over Growth characteristics. The anomalies in this cluster are
Questions EG1, EG7, and EG8.
Question EG1 was a 50/50 split for choice A and choice B and there was not a
significant difference between the rankings of each choice, meaning that people were
torn over these choices. However, there was a significant difference between ratings for
the E and G ratings. This is an interesting item, especially when compared with the
results for Question ER1, in which people chose to resume riding in the area of the
terrorist attack in order to help their spouses. This result links to the phenomena of
lightning not striking in the same place twice. However, lightning, or a terrorist attack,
has not yet occurred in the Chicago area and people are split over what they might do.
Some people always ignore the terrorist warnings and do not change their behavior
while others will totally change their plans in the face of terrorist warnings or the change
in the terror alert color chart. This would be an interesting study to undertake, to see
how many people will change their plans according to terrorist warnings. In the
comparison of the simple triad questions, the Existence choice was ranked significantly
higher than the Growth choice on the triad and the Existence choice was also ranked
significantly higher than Choice B, which was the Existence choice of the dyad scenario.
Also problematic in this instance is the use of “attractive.” Of course, a beautiful view of
the Chicago skyline and the Chicago River is more attractive than the backside of row
housing. This result points out the fact that perhaps “attractive” is not the best choice to
obtain the desired results.
40
Question EG8 probably offered too many options to participants in an effort to be
believable. Of course someone is going to choose to hop a cab over using transit if they
are afraid of the transit facility. This question would need to be re-written for the next
testing of the theory. Or, there would have to be more of a cost issue, perhaps $20 for
the cab over $2.50 for using transit. In the dyad/triad comparison of questions, the triad
Existence choice ranked significantly higher than the dyad Existence Choice A offered,
2.85 versus 4.04. In addition, the triad comparison between Existence and Growth were
also significantly different, 4.04 versus 3.62. The more simplistic questions only asked
how important it was to be safe entering and exiting a transit system, versus how
important it was to try a new restaurant. Just given those two choices, it is obvious that
someone would choose Existence over Growth. However, given all of the variables of
item EG8, it is more difficult to parse out the actual choice.
Overall, 70 percent of the results of this cluster agreed with the ERG theory. This is
significant enough to provide evidence that the EG level of the ERG theory also exists.
7.1.3 Relatedness versus Growth
In the Relatedness versus Growth cluster of the questionnaire, respondents were asked
to make a choice between Relatedness characteristics and Growth characteristics.
There were two questions, RG3 and RG10, on which the results were opposite of
expected or there was not a clear-cut majority.
On Question RG3, there was a clear-cut majority who wanted to use the basket to carry
a board game, a convenience characteristic. However, this may also be considered to
be a safety issue. If you can’t safely carry the board game, then you may crash. The
basket may be viewed as an Existence item rather than a Growth item of convenience.
This question must be rewritten for the next phase of the study. Additionally, the mean
for the Relatedness triad choice was significantly lower than the mean for the Growth
triad choice on this item.
Finally, on Question RG10 there was not a significant difference between ratings for
choice A or B and there was a 50/50 split on choosing A or B. Each choice was equally
attractive, depending on whether the person felt that the exposition or making their
boy/girlfriend happy was most important. This is another question that needs to be
retooled prior to taking off into the next phase of testing. However, in the simple triad
testing for this question, Relatedness came in with a greater importance score than the
Growth triad comparison, 3.30 versus 2.62. The triad comparison breaks the tie on this
item.
Overall, 80 percent of the results of this cluster agreed with the ERG theory. This is
significant enough to provide evidence that the RG level of the ERG theory also exists.
41
42
8. Conclusions
There is evidence from this project that the ERG theory exists on when applied to mode
choice. It is important to make some statements about how the ERG theory works in
these instances and how people’s choices can be quantified by specific variables in the
test set.
1. People will most often choose Existence over Relatedness over Growth, as
evidenced by a 70 percent majority who chose Existence over Relatedness, the
70 percent majority who chose Existence over Growth, and 80 percent majority
who chose Relatedness over Growth. These are all significant at a p<0.05 level
that these majorities are real results and not due to chance.
2. People will sometimes choose Relatedness over Existence if they feel that
the possible event is highly unlikely or is unfamiliar to them in their daily
lives. The other mitigating factor found in this study is that people will also
accommodate permanent family members or authorities. This is consistent with
Alderfer’s contention that the order of needs can be different for segments of the
population. As exhibited in Item ER1, people feel fairly safe that the Lower
Manhattan business district will not be struck by terrorists again. So, this person
can help his/her spouse. However, on the question about terrorists striking in
Chicago, item EG1, this is something that could definitely happen, especially in
the congested downtown area. Some people will say that it’s hype and others
will heed the government warnings. Also, item EG1 isn’t asking someone to
disrespect a close family member in order to ride a specific route.
3. People may be categorizing certain items differently from the researchers
in this study. For example, on item ER2, in which the person could
accommodate his/her mother or ride in comfort for the 40 minute ride, the person
chose to accommodate the mother. However, comfort for 40 minutes could be
considered something more of a convenience issue. Being comfortable and able
to have space becomes more of an Existence issue over five hours of riding a
long distance train, especially if you are elderly or have a health concern.
Therefore, the next round of testing has to be careful about what is important
when in categorizing characteristics, not just what the characteristic is.
The categorization of facilities and modes by LOS is based on the presumption that
improvements to the non-highway modes (i.e., increasing LOS) will motivate more
travelers to choose those options (i.e., if you improve it, they will come). The goal is to
improve the functioning of the transportation system for all. Improving LOS for all modes
should encourage more people to use these non-highway modes thus resulting in a
reduction in the vehicle demand on the highway system (ignoring the changes due to
population growth). This reduction can benefit communities by reducing delays,
decreasing energy consumption and reducing emissions from mobile sources. Thus, the
transportation community should seek to apply Alderfer’s motivation as a means of
improving LOS. Specifically, LOS systems should consider the wide range of needs to
be satisfied.
As discussed in a previous section, Alderfer reduced the Maslow’s number of levels to
three when studies found that the middle levels of Maslow's hierarchy overlap (i.e., the
“hierarchy” differs based on different circumstances and culture). This project focused on
empirically testing Alderfer’s Existence Relatedness Growth (ERG) theory of motivation
43
to hypothetical mode choice decisions. The empirical results of this project support the
ERG theory when operationalized for 30 paired travel scenarios. It supports the
conclusion that more than one need may be motivational for choosing a particular mode.
For example, the observed responses (expected verus actual) for each of the scenarios
showed instances where a lower motivation (e.g., existence) may not be substantially
satisfied in all cases before one moves onto higher level (e.g., relatedness). These
differences may be due to cultural differences (e.g., higher priority on family or society
than self).
Just as Alderfer refined Maslow's theory and its postulated definitive hierarchy of needs,
transportation planners must recognize that a traveler has multiple needs to satisfy
simultaneously. Furthermore, we must understand that under similar situations, the
needs can follow a different priority order for different travelers depending on the
circumstances. This broadening perspective of LOS measures implies that
transportation planners should continue to reflect Existence needs such as safety and
physiological requirements. However, LOS measures also should strive to reflect the
Relatedness needs which stress the importance of interpersonal and social
relationships. Finally, LOS measures should seek to consider the role that Growth needs
such as the individual's intrinsic desire for personal development play in mode choice.
For example, these growth needs could be reflected by the choice of alternative modes
such as transit or biking or walking in order to protect the environment.
Improved understanding of motivational theory will have implications on how LOS is
measured and how decisions are made based on those measures. Strategies to improve
LOS that focus exclusively on addressing one need at a time will not effectively motivate
change in travel behavior – a major purpose behind the multimodal LOS concept.
The expedient approach is to seek out variables to measure LOS where the data is
readily available or easily obtainable. However, transportation professionals should take
care when basing LOS measures solely on the such measures and concluding that
improvements solely to those measures will improve LOS. Correlation does not mean
causality. While we can conclude that bicycle LOS, for example, scores degrade as
pavement width narrows, one can not claim that narrow pavement widths cause low
LOS scores. The empirical results of this project show instances where higher level
needs were sought to be satisfied prior to lower level needs. This demonstrates that
there are other needs or variables that affect the results. While other measured
variables can affect the results, it is possible the results could also be due to
unmeasured variables. These unmeasured variables could be reflecting other needs
such as meeting the normative expectations of individuals or groups important to him or
her.
According to the ERG theory, focusing exclusively on one need at a time will not
effectively motivate changes in behavior. In the workplace, for example, if growth
opportunities such as providing specialized training are not provided to employees, they
may regress to relatedness needs, and socialize more with co-workers. This situation is
called frustration-regression principle.
It also applies to the motivation to use
alternatives to driving alone. If transportation planners do not consider how to satisfy the
need for social interaction, for example, when assessing LOS then travelers might
increase their demand for more security or better equipped transit vehicles.
44
Transportation professionals must recognize that a traveler has multiple needs to satisfy
simultaneously to motivate changes in travel behavior (i.e., increase the LOS). An
individual’s mode choice for a trip is presumably based on the level of service variables.
How individuals respond to these variables depends on the observed and unobserved
characteristics of a particular option for meeting their needs. Focusing on only one type
of need (e.g., existence) and neglecting other factors could limit the effectiveness of
improvements and miss the mark for tracking LOS in the first place.
LOS scales are based on generally on one level (e.g., Existence in the case of bicycle
modes). This situation ignores the fact that motivating change will depend on
relatedness factors as well. For example, in most situations driving an auto could be
considered to be safer and quicker that biking. However, some people continue to bike.
Growth needs may be superseding the lower level needs. Landis et al noted that
participants in the initial Ride for Science study were asked to ignore aesthetics of the
segment when, in fact, such needs may do much to influence their rating and ultimately
their motivation to use the bike option.
Other means exist for improving the level of service that may fall outside of the typical
improvements considered by transportation professionals. For example, if people
thought that their mode choice would be accepted and approved by others important to
them then they would have more of an intention to choose that mode. Thus, public
information campaigns aimed at influencing attitudes and behavior could, in effect,
improve LOS from a users’ perspective without capital improvements. As a corollary,
ignoring the role these other needs (e.g., relatedness and growth) can play in the mode
choice decision may be directing improvements that are less effective in the ultimate
goal of improving the perceived LOS among travelers.
Differences in how Level of Service is measured across all the modes pose a challenge
of incorporating these findings. Level of Service is generally a measure of the volume to
capacity ratio of motor vehicles and the roadways which they traverse. Bicycle and
pedestrian LOS are based on comfort and safety measurements, and transit LOS
measurements are based upon frequency of service and delay compared to single
occupancy vehicle (SOV) service. The positives of pursuing multi-modal LOS systems
are that it makes it easier for the general population to understand LOS ratings, provides
consistency in ratings, it is more environmentally sensitive and balanced, and it should
inform developers of how to design more livable communities. If a LOS system were
developed that was multi-modal and reflective of the range of needs, it would be easier
for non-professionals and regular travelers to understand how different modes are
ranked.
This project demonstrated the importance for understanding the items motivating
behavior beyond the traditional LOS measures of time and cost. These results imply
that current LOS methods may provide incomplete or inaccurate assessments of policy
actions aimed at motivating travelers to use transit, bike and walk options. An
implication of this finding is the need to perform sensitivity analysis when modeling mode
choice to reflect a range of responses expected from improvements to level-of-service
variables.
In conclusion, this study provides adequate evidence that motivation theories apply to
transportation mode choice (i.e., there is a Hierarchy of Transportation needs).
Transportation planners should seek to supplement the variables currently used for
45
determining LOS by incorporating factors that reflect the existence, relatedness, and
growth needs for motivating mode choice decisions. This broader view will require
rethinking of how level of service is measured and, therefore, how communities can
respond. Further experimentation with better classification and crafted situations and
simulation should provide stronger results in agreement with the results of this
experiment.
46
9. Future Research
In the current study, many of the problems with specific items resulted from apparent
problems with categorization. The first item on the agenda for future research would be
to test approximately 100 people of approximately the same sample composition as the
current study and to ask them how they would categorize the specific items in each of
the situations and why they would make those decisions. The problems with the current
study do give a window to many of these situations, but further testing and analysis
could clear up any misunderstandings from the current testing.
Many times, what people say they will do in a certain hypothetical situation and what
they do in the real world in that same situation are two totally different things. The main
goal for the continuation of this line of research will be to determine if stated preference
in the hypothetical is real preference in the real world situation. There are many
problems with comparing these two situations. One of them is that it is hard to perform a
within-subjects analysis of all of the real world situations one could list in a stated
preference questionnaire such as the one given to the participants in the current study.
A study of real world behavior would suffer from issues such as attrition and problematic
safety situations. There are many studies that claim people will change mode and travel
behavior when working conditions/locations change or living locations or situations
change (Seethaler & Rose, 2003; Bamberg & Schmidt, 1998, 2003; Bamberg et al.,
2003). However, these experiments were all performed in Europe or Australia. This
type of undertaking would be rather immense and would require cooperation between
researchers and transportation providers on a rather intense level. And, there is the
problem with that type of approach.
Simulation might offer the same benefits without the problems of trying to organize that
type of large experiment. For simulation, each of the most highly believable and highly
ranked items for each cluster would be presented with varied Existence, Relatedness,
and Growth characteristics. For example, Question ER1 could be reworked as doing a
favor for a friend, versus for an immediate family member. It seems plausible that there
are varying levels of existence, relatedness, and growth and that those finer gradations
could be parsed out through further study and simulation.
47
48
10. References
1. Ajila, C. O. (1997). Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs theory: Applicability to
the Nigerian industrial setting. Life Psychologia: An International Journal,
5(1) 162-174.
2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior
& 11
3. Alderfer, C. P.(1972). Existence, relatedness, & growth: Human needs in
organizational settings. New York: Free Press.
4. Alderfer, C.P. (1985). An empirical test of new theory of human needs.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 142 - 175.
5. Alderfer, C. P, Kaplan, R. E, Smith, K. K. (1974). The effect of variations in
relatedness need satisfaction on relatedness desires. Administrative Science
Quarterly,19(4), 507-532.
6. Baber, J; Vlacic, L; Noel, T; Parent, M (2003). Personal rapid transportation in
cities. Computing and Control Engineering Journal, 14(4), 20-21.
7. Baltes, M. (2003). The Importance Customers Place on Specific Service
Elements of Bus Rapid Transit. Journal of Public Transportation, 6(4). 1-19.
8. Bamberg, S. & Rolle, D. (2003). Determinants of People’s Acceptability of Pricing
Measures—Replication and Extension of a Causal Model in Acceptability of
Transport Pricing Strategies. 235-248.
9. Bamberg, S.; Rolle, D.; & Weber, C. (2003). Does Habitual Car Use Not Lead to
More Resistance to Change of Travel Mode? Transportation, 30(1), 197-208.
10. Bamberg, S & Schmidt, P. (2003) Automobile or Bicycle? Empirical test of a
Utility-Theory
Approach.
Kolner
Zeitschrift
fur
Soziologie
und
Sozialpsychologie.46(1), 80-102.
11. Barrett, S.D. (2004). How do the demands for airport services differ between fullservice carriers and low-cost carriers. Journal of Air Transport Management,
10(1), 33-39.
12. Cleland, F., & Thompson, B.J. (2001). Restful Riding Rather Than Stressful
Driving. A NCTR report for the Florida Department of Transportation.
13. Friedman, D. (2003). A new road: The technology and potential of hybrid
vehicles. Union of Concerned Scientists: Cambridge, MA.
14. Guttenplan, M., Landis, B., Crider, L., & McLeod, D. (2001). Multimodal LOS
Analysis at Planning Level. Transportation Research Record, 1776, 151-158.
15. Guttenplan, M., Davis, Steiner, & Miller (2003). Planning Level areawide
multimodal LOS analysis: Performance Measure for Congestion Management.
Transportation Research Record, 1858, 61-68.
16. Hagerty, M. R. (1999). Testing Maslow's hierarchy of needs: National quality-oflife across time. Social Indicators Research, 46(3), 249-271.
17. Jansson, J.O. (2003). A simple bus line model for optimization of service
frequency and bus size in urban transport, Classics in Transport Analysis, 8, 139166.
18. Johansson, M.V., Heldt, T. and Johansson, P. (2004). Latent variables in a travel
mode choice model: Attitudinal and behavioral indicator variables. Swedish
National Road and Transport Research Institute. Linkoping: Sweden.
19. Landis, B., Vattikuti, V. & Brannick, M. (1997). Real-time human perceptions
toward a bicycle level of service. Transportation Research Record.
20. LeClerc, Schmidt & Dube (1995).
49
21. Li, (2003). Journal of Public Transportation, 6(4).
22. Lowson, M. (2003). New approach to effective and sustainable urban transport.
Transportation Research Record, 1838, 42-49.
23. Maslow, A. (1943a). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50,
370-396.
24. Maslow, A.H. (1943b). Preface to motivation theory. Psychosomatic Medicine, 5,
85-92.
25. Maslow, A.H. (1948a). "Higher" and "lower" needs. Journal of Psychology, 25,
433-436.
26. Maslow, A.H. (1948b). Some theoretical consequences of basic needgratification. Journal of Personality, 16, 402-416.
27. Maslow, A.H. (1950). Self-actualizing people: a study of psychological health.
Personality, Symposium No. 1, 11-34.
28. Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.
29. Maslow, A.H. (1955). Deficiency motivation and growth motivation. In M.R. Jones
(ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: 1-30. Lincoln, NB.: University of
Nebraska Press.
30. Maslow, A.H. (1956). Defense and growth. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 3, 36-47.
31. Maslow, A.H. (1967b). A theory of metamotivation: the biological rooting of the
value-life. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 7(2), 93-127.
32. Moriarty, P. and Honnery, D. (2003). Alternative transport fuels: The long-term
future. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 31(1), 11-21.
33. Perone, JS & Tucker, L. (2003). An Exploration of Triangulation of
Methodologies:
Quantitative and Qualitative Methodology Fusion in An
Investigation of Perceptions of Transit Safety. NCTR-416-08.1,; NCTR-41608.2,; FDOT BC 137-22
34. Peters, J. F. (1997). An empirical correlation of Maslow's hierarchy of human
needs levels and team performance. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section
B: The Sciences & Engineering, 58(4-B), 2062.
35. Schneider, B., Alderfer, C. P. (1973). Three studies of measures of need
satisfaction in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18(4), 489-505.
36. Seethaler, R. & Rose, G. (2003). Application of Psychological Principles to
Promote Travel Behavior Change. 26th Australasian Transport Research Forum,
Wellington, New Zealand.
37. Steiner, Landis, Vattikuti, Miller. (2002). Refinement of the Roadway Level of
Service.
38. Thomas, G. (2003). When low fares are not enough: Airlines need to rethink their
advertising and branding strategies. Air Transport World, 40(9), 61-62.
39. Ulleberg, P. (2004). Social influence from the back-seat: Factors related to
adolescent passengers’ willingness to address unsafe drivers. Transportation
Research. Part F: Traffic Psychology & Behaviour, 7(1), 17-30.
40. Vallancourt, C. (2003). Breathing easy: Hybrid vehicles and the future of TDM.
TDM Review, 11(1), 11-14.
41. Vogel, M. & Pettarini. J. (2002). Personal Safety and Transit: Paths,
Environments, Stops, and Stations. Report C 02-05. 1-102.
42. Wilson, B. (2004). Teens and Transit: The next generation. Community
Transportation. Special Edition, Summer 2004.
43. Winters, PL; Perez, RA; Perone, JS; and Joshi, A. (2005). Worksite Trip
Reduction Model and Manual.
A report for the Florida Department of
Transportation and NCTR. NCTR-473-14; FDOT BC137-41. 1-139.
50
44. Winters, PL; Cleland, F; Mierzejewski, E; Tucker, L. (2001). Assessing Level of
Service Equally Across Modes. A report for the Florida Department of
Transportation and NCTR. Contract BC353RPWO#15. 1-53.
51
52
Appendix A: Final Questionnaire
ERG Survey
Instructions: Please answer the following questions.
1. What is your age and gender?
Select
2. How many children under 16 are living in your home?
Select
3. What is your ethnicity
Select
4. Are you currently employed?
Select
5. Are you a student?
Select
6. How many cars do you have available at your home?
Select
7. Do you have a valid driver's license?
Select
8. Do you currently take any form of transit? If yes, which
form of public transit do you take?
Select
HARTLine
Pasco County Public Transportation (PCPT)
Any form of Paratransit
Pinellas County Transit
Other
9. Have you ever used any form of public
transit in the past? If yes, what forms have you
used?
Select
Train (Elevated or Subway)
Bus
Long-distance train
10. Currently, how often do you use the
following modes of transportation?
Daily = 1
Several times per week = 2
A few times a month = 3
A few times a year = 4
Never = 5
Drive alone
Carpool (i.e. ride with 2 to 6 persons in a car) 1
Vanpool (i.e. ride with 7 to 14 persons in a van)
1
Train
Bus
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
A-1
Trolley
Walk/jog
1
Bike
Motorcycle
1
Telecommute (i.e., work from home instead of
driving into your school/office)
1
Other:
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
11. Where do you live? (Zip Code)
12. How would you rate your transit service in your
area, on a scale from 1-5, with 1 being the worst
1
and 5 being the best.
2
3
4
5
13. On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being the worst
and 5 being the best, what do you think of public
transportation in general throughout the U.S.?
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
15. On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being the least
important and 5 being the most important, how
important is it for you to drive your car?
1
2
3
4
5
16. On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being the least
important and 5 being the most important, how
important is good public transportation to you in
this phase of your life?
1
2
3
4
5
14. On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being the worst
and 5 being the best, what do you think of public
transportation in larger cities, such as New York,
NY; Chicago, IL; Los Angeles, CA; Boston, MA;
etc?
Instructions: As much as you possibly can, please imagine yourself and your actions within the situations listed
below by selecting A or B for route, rating the attractiveness of each option, rating the importance of each
characteristic, and rating the believability of each situation. Assume only the information given in the situations
listed below. In each of the questions, you will be asked to selected between Route A or B and then asked to
rank the attractiveness of each Route on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being worst and 5 being best. In addition,
there are three questions on the importance of certain attributes in the situation. Please rank the importance of
each item on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being least important and 5 being most important. Finally, we ask you to
rank the believability of each scenario on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being least believable and 5 being most
believable. There are 30 questions on this survey.
1. Before the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks, you took the subway from the PATH station in New Jersey into work in
Lower Manhattan every day and it was very convenient. The PATH station in Lower Manhattan was damaged in
the WTC terrorist bombings and had to be reconstructed. During this time, you used a longer route to access
your workplace, which took you twice as long as your original commute. Due to your longer commute, the
responsibility of picking up your children fell to your spouse. The reconstructed PATH line has opened up and
you can now resume your commute on the PATH line. Your spouse wants you to take the new route because it
would be easy for you to pick up the children on your way home if you took the reconstructed PATH line. Which
do you choose?
A-2
A: You resume your old commute and take the new PATH line. This allows you to pick up your kids, making
your spouse very happy and also cutting your commute time in half.
B: You continue to ride the longer route that you feel is safer, even though this means that you won’t be
able to help your spouse pick up the children before dinner time. You want to help your spouse, but the thought
of returning to the PATH line terrifies you and you can't seem to get it out of your mind.
A-3
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
How important it is to feel safe during your work commute.
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to you to help your spouse?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is the monetary cost of riding each route?
1
2
3
4
How believable is this scenario?
5
1
2
3
4
5
Question ER2
You will be taking a train this evening to eat dinner with your family. You have a choice of two trains, an express
train that will get you to the stop at the same time your mother arrives to her park and ride lot at the train station
and another train that will get you there 45 minutes later. You know that the later train will be a lot less crowded
than the express train and you will have space to sit and be comfortable. Which do you choose?
A: You choose to ride the express train so that you can accommodate you mother’s schedule, even though
you are unable to find a seat and are very uncomfortable during the 40 minute train ride.
A-4
B: You choose to go against your parent’s wishes and choose to ride on a train that has plenty of seats so
that you can be comfortable on for the trip. Your mother is unhappy that she had to wait on you, but you were
comfortable for the trip.
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
How important was it to be comfortable on your train ride?
1
2
3
4
5
How important was it to accommodate your mother?
1
2
3
4
5
1
How much each route cost to ride?
How believable is this scenario?
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
A-5
5
5
Question ER3
You are staying on a small island for the summer and you are going to go bike riding to your friend’s house and
the only route is a soft dirt road. You have a choice of two bikes to ride. The first bike makes it much easier to
ride in the sand and the second makes it much harder to ride in the sand on the way to your friend’s house. The
sand bike, because of its light, large plastic wheels, is fairly easy to maneuver in the sand and will get you to
your friend’s house quickly and easily. However, your friend thinks that these sand bikes look ridiculous and will
probably make fun of you if you ride the sand bike. Your friend likes the bike that you use on the paved roads
around the island, but this bike will be very hard to ride in the sand. Which do you choose?
A: You choose the sand bike because you know that it will be easy to maneuver it in the loose sand on the
way to your friend’s house and you don’t care if your friend thinks it looks silly, because you don’t want to put
yourself through trying to ride a bike that is not designed for use in the sand to impress your friend.
.
B: You choose the bike designed for use on pavement, even though you know you’ll have a heck of a time
trying to maneuver it through the loose sand. You want to impress your friend with the bike you know that he or
she likes.
A-6
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it that you can safely maneuver your bike in the sand?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it for you to impress your friend?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to ride your bike to help the environment?
1
2
3
4
How believable is this scenario?
5
1
2
3
4
5
Question ER4
You need to use transit to get to a football game in a place with which you are not extremely familiar. You have a
choice between two special event transit pick-up areas. However, the passengers who typically ride this bus line
A-7
are opposing fans and they have hassled you the few times you have ridden this shuttle service in the past. You
understand that there are two shuttle pick-up areas, one for the opposing team and one for the home team. You
haven’t yet been able to locate the opposing team pick-up area, because you have only ridden the shuttle bus
from the home team pick-up area. Which do you choose?
A: You ride from the home team pick-up into the stadium, because you don’t want to get lost looking for this
visitor pick-up area. You can handle being harassed, but not being lost.
B: You go looking for visitor’s pick-up point so that you don’t have to be harassed on your way into the
stadium. It took approximately 10 minutes to find this area, but you feel more comfortable riding into the game
with the fans from your team and now you know you won’t get lost again.
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
A-8
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to not get lost on your way to the game?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to not be harassed by opposing team fans?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is the cost to take each shuttle?
How believable is this scenario?
1
2
1
2
3
4
3
4
5
5
Question 5 ER
You and your spouse would like to drive a car 50 miles to Glacier National Forest for some hiking. There are two
cars available for the drive, your 2004 H2 Hummer or your significant other’s Toyota Prius, which needs some
brake work. You want to take the Hummer because it is in perfect running condition, especially for the steep
mountain twists and turns found in the park. Your significant other has never liked the Hummer because it is ‘an
ostentacious gas-guzzler.’ Your significant other would rather take a more ‘humble’ car, even if it needs brake
work, and claims that the Prius is fundamentally sound for mountainous travel. What do you choose?
A. You honor the wishes of your significant other to NOT ride in your H2 Hummer and you take the Prius on
the mountain ride, reasoning that their happiness is more important than little brake work.
A-9
B. You’re worried that the brakes on the Prius might not be safe enough for mountain climbing and so you
insist on bringing the car which has the safer equipment, even though your significant other resents having to
ride in the ‘gas-guzzler.’
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to have safe brakes in the mountains?
A-10
1
2
3
4
5
1
How important is it to please your spouse?
2
3
4
5
How important is it to try to reduce greenhouse emissions?
1
2
3
4
How believable is this scenario?
5
1
2
3
4
5
Question ER6
You take the train to work each morning. You usually wait 15 minutes for the train to arrive. You have the choice
of riding one of two trains, which arrive 5 minutes apart at separate platforms, so that if you decided to take one
train, you would not see the people from the other train. The one train arrives on platform A and usually has
some unusual types of people waiting to load and these people make you feel nervous about what they might do.
However, one of the days when you were waiting on platform A, you noticed a very attractive person getting off
the train as you were getting on. If you use the train at platform B, you probably will not see this possible love
interest again soon, but you will be waiting with people who make you feel safer. What do you do?
A. You take the train at platform A, because you want to see that very attractive person again. You can
handle the nervousness over the strange people if you can see this potential love interest again.
A-11
B. You take the train from platform B, because the unusual people just make you feel too unsafe and you
want to wait with people who make you feel safer.
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to feel comfortable in your transit waiting area?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to see your potential love interest again?
1
2
3
4
5
How important it is to help the environment by using transit?
1
2
3
4
How believable is this scenario?
5
1
2
3
4
5
Question ER7
You are going to start riding your bike to work, a commute of 3-4 miles every day. A group of your friends also
want to ride into work with you. However, you disagree on which route to take. Your friends want to take a
shorter route, that is 3 miles long, that includes some very congested roads on which you don’t feel safe. You
want to take the 4 mile route which has less congestion and is safer. But, you also really would like to ride with
your friends, because it will make the bike ride more fun. What do you choose?
A-12
A. You choose to ride with your friends on the congested road, because you would rather ride a shorter
route and be with your friends riding into work than alone.
B. You choose to ride in the safer, less congested area, even though you have to ride a longer distance and
you can’t ride with your friends.
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
A-13
How important is it to feel safe on your chosen bike route?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to ride with friends?
1
2
How important is the scenery on each of the routes?
How believable is this scenario?
1
2
3
3
1
4
4
2
5
3
4
5
5
Question ER8
You are going to take the bus to the mall. You have the option of two different bus stops which are convenient to
your house. The bus stop that is only 2 blocks from your house makes you feel a bit nervous, because there is
no shelter or bench, it is very close to the oncoming flow fast traffic, and there is a large overhang from the
building next to the bus stop that makes you feel a bit crowded. Most of your friends use this stop. The other
stop is a really nice shelter, with plenty of bench space and protection from the elements, as well as protection
from the oncoming traffic. This stop makes you feel much safer than the one that is so exposed to traffic.
However, you have to walk 3 blocks to access this stop and your friends don’t usually use this stop. But, you do
like the fact that you have shelter and a place to sit. Which do you choose?
A: You choose to walk the extra block to access the safer stop because you like the safety that this stop
affords you, as opposed to the corner stop. You don't mind if you don't get to wait with your friends.
B. You choose the corner stop because it is more convenient and you can wait with your friends. You are
not all that concerned about your safety being in such close proximity to traffic.
A-14
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to wait in an area that is safe from oncoming traffic?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to wait with your friends at the bus stop?
1
2
3
4
5
1
How important is the cost to ride from each point?
How believable is this scenario?
1
2
3
2
4
3
4
5
5
Question ER9
You are going to walk to the store and you have two paths to choose from. On one of the paths, you must cross a
gas station in order to get to the store. This is the shortest and most convenient route and you are able to stop
by your friend's Pizzeria on the way. Recently, there have been some gang members hanging out in this gas
station lot and you feel afraid to cross by the gas station because of this reason. You used to like to stop by your
friend’s pizzeria to hang out and have a slice on the way back from the store. But, you have started taking the
second route, even though it is longer and more complex and does NOT go by your friend's Pizzeria. You really
want to stop by your friend’s pizzeria on the way home from the store today. What do you do?
A-15
A. You choose to take the route that takes you by the gas station, hoping that the gang members will not
notice you crossing in front of ‘their’ gas station. You want to go hang out with your friend at the pizzeria and
you don't want to let the hoodlums scare you off any longer.
B. You choose the second route that is longer, but safe from the gang members. This doesn’t allow you to
see your friend, but you figure that you can call for carry out if you want some pizza and your friend can come
and visit you in your home, where you feel safer.
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to be safe from gang violence, but to have a longer walk?
A-16
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to be able to see your friend, even if you have to cross where the gang is?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is the scenery on each route?
How believable is this scenario?
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
Question 10 ER
You are driving with your boy/girlfriend in a rural area on your way to a local College campus. Your girl/boyfriend
thinks that you should take a route into campus that is rural and icy and slippery, because he/she wants to show
you this place where you can go sledding this weekend. You feel nervous riding on icy roads, but you know that
your boy/girlfriend will be angry if you choose not to go by the sledding site. You also know how terrified you
were when you lost control of your car on this same slippery route a week ago. Which do you choose?
A. You choose the local maintained route for your own safety and, since he/she is riding with you, the
safety of your boy/girlfriend. Your boy/girlfriend is very upset and unhappy that you won’t drive by the sledding
site and pouts all the way into campus, but you feel more comfortable on the maintained route.
B. You choose to indulge your boy/girlfriend and drive by the sledding site on the way to campus, even
though you don’t feel safe driving on an unplowed icy road and you are afraid that you might have an accident.
But, you are glad that you are making your boy/girlfriend happy.
A-17
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it for you to be able to safely control your car on icy roads?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it for you to make your boy/girlfriend happy?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it that you see nice scenery on the way?
1
2
3
4
How believable is this scenario?
5
1
2
3
4
5
Question EG1
You usually ride the EL (elevated train) to work in Downtown Chicago. The Chicago Transit Authority has issued
a terrorist warning about which routes may be susceptible because of their location in the city. The route that
you usually take to work is on this list and there is another route that you can take to work that is not at risk, but
you have to look at the backside of ugly row houses. What do you do?
A: You choose to ride on your normal route, reasoning that the U.S. State Department issues warnings all of
the time about terrorist threats, with none of them happening. You enjoy your ride into work in the morning, and
you’re not altering your route because of State Department warning that something might happen.
A-18
B: You are really afraid of another terrorist attack in a city such as Chicago, so you choose to alter your
route and go the ‘ugly’ route, even though you miss your ‘beautiful’ route, in order to feel safer.
A-19
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
How important it is that your route is safe from terrorists?
1
2
3
4
5
1
How important it is that your friends ride this route?
2
3
4
5
How important it is that you get to enjoy a scenic view on the way to work?
1
2
3
4
How believable is this scenario?
5
1
2
3
4
5
Question EG2
You are going to ride an Amtrak train to see your family. The train ride will last for 5 hours. You have a choice of
two trains. The first one is a commuter special train that offers a bargain rate for commuters at certain hours of
the day. You know that this train is often very crowded and when you have taken this train before, you’ve been
very uncomfortable and hot from overcrowding. You are somewhat interested in taking this train because it is
only $36. But, you know that you could take another train that would not be so overcrowded and you would have
room to relax or to sleep or work on the train. You like the idea of the extra comfort during your train ride, but the
A-20
less crowded train is more than twice the price of the commuter special train at $75. You want to save money,
but you also want to be comfortable. What do you choose?
A: You choose to save money and ride the crowded train, figuring that you can stand several of hours of
discomfort to save half of the fare.
B: You choose comfort over cost and choose to ride the more expensive, but more spacious train. Five
hours is a long time to be packed into a small space.
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it for you to be comfortable on your long train ride?
A-21
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it for you to ride with your friends on your train ride?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it for you to save money on the train ride?
1
2
3
4
How believable is this scenario?
5
1
2
3
4
5
Question EG3
You want to ride a bike to visit your friend to play a board game. Your friend lives 3 miles from you, down a soft
dirt road. You can either use a regular bike that has a basket for a board game, which will be very hard to safely
maneuver in soft dirt. Or, you can take the sand bike and the wide and light plastic tires will make riding in loose
sand or dirt a breeze. But, the beach bike does not have a convenient basket for your board game, so you will
have to figure out a way to carry it on the sand bike. Which do you choose?
A: You choose the sand bike. You know that if you try to ride the regular bike in the soft dirt, it will be
extremely hard and inefficient, even though the regular bike has a carrying basket for your game. You think you
can find another way to carry the game if the riding can be made easier.
B: You can’t figure out another way to get the board game to your friend’s house, so you choose the bike
with a basket. You know that it will be hard to ride the regular bike through loose dirt, but you can’t figure out
how else to carry the game to your friend’s house.
A-22
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it that you can easily control and maneuver your bike in sand?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it that your friend doesn’t make fun of the bike that you’re riding?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is that you have a basket in which to carry your board game?
1
2
3
4
How believable is this scenario?
5
1
2
3
4
5
Question EG4
You are going to a concert in a somewhat unfamiliar city. You have a choice between two transit lines. The bus
line has published extensive maps and other documentation that allow you to easily use the bus line. However,
you will have to switch buses two times in order to reach your destination. There is also a trolley service that you
noticed, but you are not sure of where this trolley goes or if it will take you to the concert. A stranger in the
parking lot tells you that the trolley will take you to the concert. Do you choose to take the bus, because you are
certain of where it goes, even though it might be inconvenient, or do you take the Trolley based on word of
mouth information? Which do you choose?
A: You love this group and you don’t want to miss the concert and you know for sure that the bus system
will get you there and you have solid information about where it goes and what time it will get to the event
center. So, you discount what the stranger in the parking lot said and go for the sure thing.
A-23
B: You decide to take the word of the stranger in the parking lot and you catch the Trolley to see where it
goes. You figure that the stranger in the parking lot was trying to be helpful and save you some time. So, you
jump aboard the Trolley, hoping that it will take you to the concert.
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
A-24
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it for you to know how to find your way on this transit system?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it for you to ride with your friends to the concert on the transit system?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it for you to be able to get to the concert in the least steps possible?
1
2
3
4
How believable is this scenario?
5
1
2
3
4
5
Question EG5
You are going to take a 200 mile trip with your family to go camping and hiking in a national forest this weekend.
You have a choice of two cars. You have a Jeep Grand Cherokee and a Toyota Prius. In the past few days, the
Jeep seems to be having some engine trouble and you really don’t have time to take it into the shop prior to your
trip. The Jeep has a lot more space for your passengers and hiking gear than the Prius, but you are afraid that
the Jeep will have engine trouble up in the mountains. You know for sure that the Prius is in tip top shape
because you just had it serviced by your mechanic two weeks ago. You’re not sure of what to do, because the
Prius really doesn’t have a lot of passenger or cargo space and there are four of you. Which do you choose?
A. You decide that you want to have enough space for people and cargo. You believe that the Jeep can
make the trip, even given the recent engine problems, so you go ahead and hope that don’t break down 200 miles
from home.
A-25
B. You decide that you don’t want to chance having a major engine breakdown 200 miles from home. You
decide to stuff 4 people and cargo in a smaller car that you know for sure will get you roundtrip on your camping
trip.
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was Choice A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was Choice B?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to have a safe vehicle for your family to ride in on this trip?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it that your friends down the street approve of your vehicle for this trip?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to have more space for luggage and people on your trip?
1
2
3
4
How believable is this scenario?
5
1
2
3
4
5
Question EG6
You take a train to work each morning and you usually wait approximately 15 minutes for your train to arrive
each morning. You live equidistant between two train stations. At one train station, you can have amenities
such as a coffee shop, a newsstand and a nice waiting area. Lately, you have noticed that there are some
vagrants hanging out in the coffee shop and waiting area. They make you feel uncomfortable and a few have
A-26
even approached you for money recently and you are worried that they may become violent. The other station
only has vending machines and plastic chairs. You have complained to the management of the nicer station
about the vagrants several times, but they have a hard time keeping them out, especially if they pay for a cup of
coffee. What do you do?
A. You keep on taking the train from the nicer station. You don’t want to let the vagrants keep you from
enjoying the amenities of the nicer station.
B. You go to the station with less amenities, because the vagrants at the nicer station make you feel too
vulnerable and nervous during your wait. At lleast you can get coffee out of the vending machine.
A-27
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to feel safe from other people at your transit station?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it that you can meet your friends at this transit station?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it for you to have nicer amenities and a nicer place to wait?
1
2
3
4
5
A-28
How believable is this scenario?
1
2
3
4
5
Question EG7
You are going to start riding your bike to work, a commute of 3 miles every day. One of the routes is through a
rural, unpopulated area, which runs by a cemetary, but there is nice scenery along the way. However, you have
heard about some strange supernatural activities in that area in recent weeks that have everyone concerned (i.e.,
Blair Witch). The other route is also around 3 miles in length and runs through a very populated area, but it is not
very scenic. Which do you choose?
A. You choose to ride where there are people, because you are afraid of riding alone in the rural, deserted
area, especially by the cemetary.
B. You choose to take the more scenic route and you think that the supernatural rumors are just to drum up
tourist trade. It's a beautiful ride.
A-29
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to feel that there are safe people around you on your bike ride to work?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to ride with your friends to work?
1
How important is a scenic view on your bike ride?
How believable is this scenario?
1
2
1
3
2
2
4
Question EG8
A-30
3
3
5
4
4
5
5
You are going to meet a friend in Washington D.C. for a night out on the town. Your really want to go to a
restaurant that is off of the transit stop in DuPont Circle, but you don’t like the DuPont Circle station because
there is a very steep escalator into and out of the station and you are afraid of both heights and escalators. You
also heard that a person was seriously injured recently when their coat got caught in the escalator. Union Station
does not have steep escalator entries or exits in the transit area, so you feel much safer there, but there are only
chain restaurants in and around Union Station area. You really want to go to this restaurant which is off of the
DuPont Circle Metra stop, but you're scared of the steep escalators and it will cost $10 (versus a $2.50 transit
fare) to catch a taxi from Union Station to the restaurant at DuPont Circle. What do you choose?
A: You decide to stay at Union Station to have dinner and to go to a movie later. You are very
disappointed, because you wanted to try the new restaurant, but you know that you would have felt very
panicked and unsafe entering/exiting the DuPont Circle Station.
A-31
B. You decide to venture outside of the relative safety of Union Station and go to DuPont Circle to the new
Asian/French fusion restaurant that you want to try. You decide to pay the $10 to take a cab from Union Station to
DuPont Circle area, instead of transit.
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to feel safe entering and exiting the transit station?
1
2
3
How important is it that people who you like and feel comfortable with are at the transit stations?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to try a new restaurant?
How believable is this scenario?
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
A-32
4
5
5
4
5
Question EG9
You are going on a walk down to Bayshore Boulevard. You have the choice of two routes. The one route is safer
from traffic, but you also think it’s a tremendously ugly, industrial part of town. The more scenic route has a lot
of traffic on it and you have been nearly run down by cars crossing the street on this route. What do you do?
A. You choose the route that takes you into the more congested traffic route, because you prefer the more
scenic route.
B. You choose the less congested, safer route, even though you don’t like the scenery.
A-33
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to be safe while walking to your destination?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it that your boy/girlfriend approves of your route?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it that you have a scenic walk on the way to your destination?
5
How believable is this scenario?
1
2
3
4
Question EG10
A-34
5
1
2
3
4
You are driving in a rural area on your way to a local Campus. You need to take a route into campus that is rural
and icy and slippery, because you want to see where you can go sledding on the weekend. You are not
comfortable or experienced at driving in the snow, but you want to see the sledding site, so you will know how to
get there this weekend. You lost control of your car in a similar rural area the week before and you are a bit
apprehensive about driving on unmaintained, icy roads. Which do you choose?
A. You choose the local maintained route for your own safety and you tell yourself, that for safety's sake,
you might not go out to the sledding site at all.
B. You choose to ride the unmaintained, rural route, so that you can see where to go sledding this
weekend. You are nervous, but you think that the area will be very nice to sled around in.
A-35
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to maintain control of your car on icy roads?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it that your friends want you to take them sledding?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it for you to find a site to go sledding?
1
2
3
4
How believable is this scenario?
5
1
2
3
4
Question RG1
A-36
5
You take the bus into work every day. You have a choice of two bus routes. On the one bus route, there are some
people with whom you don’t really like to ride the bus, mostly because many are vagrants and while not
dangerous, offensive to your sense of smell. However, there is one reason why you enjoy riding this route, the
fact that you can see the beach and the water as well as some very beautiful and historic buildings. It seems to
make going to work more pleasant and worthwhile when you see the beach. The other route passes industrial
areas and housing projects. However, the people on the less beautiful route are other working people like
yourself. You really like to see the beach every morning, but you can hardly stand the smells of the people who
ride the bus out to the beach every morning. Which route do you choose?
A: You decide that you need your ‘beach fix’ on the way to work in the morning, so you put up with the
stinky vagrants. You figure that you can sit as far away as possible from those with the most offending odors
and maybe you can ask the bus driver if you could crack open a window.
B: You decide that the vagrants make you so disgusted that you will have to forego your daily beach route
and opt for the less beautiful route that passes housing projects. You can go to the beach and enjoy the sights
on your days off.
A-37
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is feeling safe from harm by others on your ride to work?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it that others on the bus are non-offensive with their personal appearance and odor?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to be able to see pleasant scenery on the way to work?
1
2
3
4
How believable is this scenario?
5
1
2
3
4
Question RG2
A-38
5
You want to ride a train visit your family for the weekend. Your family wants you to ride the express train,
because it gets in at 7 pm and it will be more convenient for them to pick you up at this time. However, you want
to ride a later train that gets in at 10 pm because this train is less expensive than the other train, $36 versus $46.
You know that your family will be unhappy for most of your visit if you choose the later train. What do you do?
A: You choose to honor your family’s wishes and to take the earlier and more expensive train, because you
want to make your family happy.
B: You choose to save yourself some money and ride the later train. Your family is very unhappy over this,
but you saved money.
A-39
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to ride on a train that is safe and secure?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to make your family happy by riding the earlier train?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it for you to save $10 by riding a later train?
1
2
3
4
How believable is this scenario?
5
1
2
3
4
Question RG3
A-40
5
You want to ride your bike 2 miles to visit your friend to play a board game. You have a choice of two bikes, one
that your friend thinks is really cool and one that has a polka dotted basket on the front that your friend ridicules
you about. However, the basket would help you to carry the board game. What do you choose?
A: You choose the bike that your friend thinks is cool, even though it’s hard to manage riding the bike and
carrying the board game without the basket on the other bike.
B: You choose the polka-dotted basket bike that your friend thinks is really silly-looking, because it is easier
to carry the board game using this bike.
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to be able to safely maneuver your bike?
A-41
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to impress your friend with your choice of bike?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to be able to carry the board game more easily?
1
2
3
4
How believable is this scenario?
5
1
2
3
4
5
Question RG4
You are going to take a bus to get to a concert taking place in a town that you are not super familiar with. You
have a choice between two routes in the town. On one of the routes you will only have to make one transfer to
get to the concert. However, you have taken this route before and the people on it were obnoxious and possibly
intoxicated. You don’t think that these people are dangerous, just annoying. The other route has more
considerate and friendlier people, but you will have to make two transfers to get to your concert if you take this
route. Which route do you choose?
A: You choose the route with the nicer people. You would rather be inconvenienced by the transfers than
have to ride the bus with a bunch of obnoxious people.
B: You choose the route with only one transfer, figuring that you can deal with the obnoxious people for the
convenience of not having to transfer.
A-42
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to be in a safe part of town when you catch this bus?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to be with people who you like on the bus ride?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to have the convenience of not having to transfer to get to your destination?
1
2
3
4
How believable is this scenario?
5
1
2
3
4
5
Question RG5
You are going to drive 200 miles to go hiking in a national forest. You have a choice of two different cars. Your
significant other doesn’t like your hybrid car that you want to take and wants to bring his/her Jeep. You think
that the hybrid will do just as well and will be better for the environment. Which do you choose?
A-43
A. You choose to bring the hybrid, even though your significant other doesn’t really like it all that much.
He/she thinks that it’s really uncool next to his/her Jeep and complains the whole time that he/she doesn’t have
enough space for the hiking gear.
B. You choose to make your boy/girlfriend happy by bringing the Jeep, so that he/she will have enough
space for his/her hiking gear, even though it will use a lot of gasoline and produce a lot of emissions.
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to have a safe, reliable car on your trip?
1
2
3
4
5
A-44
How important is it to please your boy/girlfriend by taking the Jeep?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to be more environmentally friendly by taking the hybrid car?
1
2
3
4
5
How believable is this scenario?
1
2
3
4
5
Question RG6
You take the train to work each morning. You usually wait 15 minutes for the train to arrive. You have the choice
of two train stations, which are equal distance from your home. Train station A is a hub and it has shopping and
restaurants and nice waiting areas. Train station B is nicely landscaped and attractive and offers shelter from the
elements, but does not have all of the shops, restaurants, and other amenities that Train station A has. However,
while waiting for train B, you noticed and had a nice interaction with a very attractive person, who you would like
to get to know better. Which do you choose?
A. You choose train B, because you want to use your 15 minutes of waiting time to get to know this person
better.
A-45
B. You choose train A, because you like having all of the amenities and you hope that you will find another
attractive person at this stop.
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to feel safe at your train station?
1
A-46
2
3
4
5
How important is it to see your possible love interest again?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to have amenities such as restaurants, shops, and seating areas?
1
2
3
4
How believable is this scenario?
5
1
2
3
4
5
Question RG7
You are getting ready for a 5-day bike trip to the Grand Tetons. You and your spouse are avid cyclists and enjoy
these types of trips. You are trying to decide between two different paths. You want to bike in the Grand Tetons
and it’s a very mountainous area. But, you like this one route that is full of natural potholes and your spouse
likes the route that will be easier to ride on. You tell your spouse that it will be a fun adventure and that the
scenery will be much better on the more strenuous route, especially the wildlife. Your spouse is an avid cyclist,
too, and does enjoy a good ride, but feels that the difficulty of the route isn’t worth the tradeoff for scenery.
According to your guide, both routes are equally safe, it’s just that one is much more strenuous than another.
The guide agrees with you that the more strenuous route is also slightly more scenic than the less strenuous
route, mainly that you get to be closer to wildlife such as moose and bison. What do you choose?
A. You choose the more strenuous route, because you want the better scenery and vistas, even though
your spouse is a bit resentful that you didn’t take his/her feelings into consideration. You figure that your
spouse is in really good physical shape and they can handle the harder route. You think they’ll thank you later
for choosing the better scenery.
B. You choose the less strenuous ride, because you know that 5-days is a long time to be with an unhappy
spouse and you want for him or her to enjoy the ride just as much as you do. In the Grand Tetons, the scenery
never disappoints and maybe if your spouse has a good time on this bike trip he or she will agree to the harder
one next time.
A-47
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to be safe on your bike trip?
1
2
3
How important is it to please your spouse on the 5-day bike trip?
How important is it to see the better scenery on the bike trip?
How believable is this scenario?
1
2
3
4
4
1
1
5
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
Question RG8
You are going to meet a friend in Washington D.C. for a night out on the town. Your friend wants to meet at a
transit stop in DuPont Circle and you want to meet at Union Station. DuPont Circle is just a concrete hole in the
ground that you take an escalator into and out of. It is not nearly as nice as you think Union Station is. But, your
friend is very insistent on going to DuPont Circle to their favorite restaurant. You’re not sure if you want to leave
Union Station, which is also surrounded by beautiful and historical buildings to go to a local neighborhood that
may not be as lovely. You are also only in town for the one night and it is your tradition to go to Union Station
and people watch and enjoy the atmosphere and shopping and restaurants. But, you also only see your friend a
few times a year when you’re in D.C. on business and you want to make him or her happy as well. What do you
choose?
A: You tell your friend that you don’t live in D.C., so you get to decide where you go and you want to visit
Union Station on your only night there. You know that your friend will be disappointed, but you really enjoying
seeing the surrounding areas of Union Station.
A-48
B. You decide to do something different and you take the Metra to the DuPont Circle station and you meet
your friend at the Asian/French fusion restaurant that they mentioned. You figure that you will return to D.C. in a
few months and you can see Union Station then.
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to be safe at the transit stations?
1
2
How important is it to please your friend by trying the new restaurant?
A-49
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it for you to see the nice architecture and buildings around the Union Station area?
1
2
3
4
How believable is this scenario?
5
1
2
3
4
5
Question RG9
You are going on a walk with your parents down Bayshore Boulevard in Tampa. You have the choice of two
routes. One route is significantly longer than the other route. The shorter route takes you past a vacant lot that
just is so ugly you feel it spoils the walk for you. The longer route has some areas that aren’t as beautiful as you
would like, but not as blighted as you think the vacant lot is. However, your parents do not want to walk two
miles instead of one mile just so that you don’t have to look at the vacant lot. It’s not dangerous, it’s just ugly,
they tell you, and they want to get to beautiful Bayshore more quickly. You know that your parents are capable
of walking the two miles, but it means that they will not be able to enjoy the walk along Bayshore for as long. The
main goal of the walk is to enjoy the beauty of Bayshore. What do you do?
A. You choose to take the route that takes you by the vacant lot, keeping your eyes straight ahead on the
sidewalk and diverting them from the ugly lot. You know that your parents appreciate the fact that you will walk
past a small blighted area in order for your family to get to Bayshore more quickly for your evening walk.
A-50
B. You decide that you just can’t deal with that vacant lot and decide to make your parents walk the two
mile route as opposed to the one mile route. Your parents are very unhappy that you are making them waste
time that they could spend walking on Bayshore, walking along the Downtown streets in Tampa and aren’t very
nice company on the walk.
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to be safe on your evening walk?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to make your parents happy with your choice of walking route?
1
2
3
4
5
How important is it to have a scenic route to your destination?
A-51
1
2
3
4
5
How believable is this scenario?
1
2
3
4
5
Question RG10
You are driving to a local campus with your boy/girlfriend. You want to go by and see an exposition
presentation. Going by the exposition is inconvenient and your boy/girlfriend doesn’t want to go to it. But, you
do have time before your classes start and you think that it would be fun for the both of you to go by the
exposition. You know that your boy/girlfriend just wants to get to class and will be angry if you go by the
exposition. What choice do you make?
A. You choose to go straight to your classes, missing the exposition that you wanted to see, but pleasing
your boy/girlfriend.
B. You choose to ignore your significant other’s wishes and you take him/her to see the exposition anyway,
thinking that they will like it once they get there.
A-52
Directions: Please answer the following questions for this situation. For each of the following questions 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rating.
How attractive was route A?
1
2
3
4
5
How attractive was route B?
1
2
3
4
5
1
How important is it to be able to safely get to your destination?
2
How important is it to please your boy/girlfriend with your choice of route?
1
How important is it to see the exposition?
How believable is this scenario?
1
2
2
3
3
4
A-53
4
5
3
1
5
4
2
5
3
4
5
Appendix B
A.1 Question ER1
Before the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks, you took the subway from the PATH station in
New Jersey into work in Lower Manhattan every day and it was very convenient. The
PATH station in Lower Manhattan was damaged in the WTC terrorist bombings and had
to be reconstructed. During this time, you used a longer route to access your workplace,
which took you twice as long as your original commute. Due to your longer commute,
the responsibility of picking up your children fell to your spouse. The reconstructed
PATH line has opened up and you can now resume your commute on the PATH line.
Your spouse wants you to take the new route because it would be easy for you to pick
up the children on your way home if you took the reconstructed PATH line. Which do
you choose?
A (Relatedness choice): You resume your old commute and take the new PATH line.
This allows you to pick up your kids, making your spouse very happy and also cutting
your commute time in half. 80 percent/ 3.49
B(Existence choice): You continue to ride the longer route that you feel is safer, even
though this means that you won’t be able to help your spouse pick up the children before
dinner time. You want to help your spouse, but the thought of returning to the PATH line
terrifies you. 20 percent/ 2.88
No significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 4.38
Relatedness rating: 4.23
Growth rating: 3.38
Believability: 3.70
A.2 Question 2 ER
You will be taking a train this evening to eat dinner with your family. You have a choice
of two trains, an express train that will get you to the stop at the same time your mother
arrives to her park and ride lot at the train station and another train that will get you there
45 minutes later. You know that the later train will be a lot less crowded than the
express train and you will have space to sit and be comfortable. Which do you choose?
A (Relatedness choice): You choose to ride the express train so that you can
accommodate you mother’s schedule, even though you are unable to find a seat and are
very uncomfortable during the 40 minute train ride. 81 percent/ 2.97
B. (Existence choice): You choose to go against your parent’s wishes and choose to
ride on a train that has plenty of seats so that you can be comfortable on for the trip.
Your mother is unhappy that she had to wait on you, but you were comfortable for the
trip.19 percent/ 3.48
There is a significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 3.62
Relatedness rating: 4.14
B-1
Growth rating: 3.36
Believability: 3.16
A.3 Question ER3
You are staying on a small island for the summer and you are going to go bike riding to
your friend’s house and the only route is a soft dirt road. You have a choice of two bikes
to ride. The first bike makes it much easier to ride in the sand and the second makes it
much harder to ride in the sand on the way to your friend’s house. The sand bike,
because of its light, large plastic wheels, is fairly easy to maneuver in the sand and will
get you to your friend’s house quickly and easily. However, your friend thinks that these
sand bikes look ridiculous and will probably make fun of you if you ride the sand bike.
Your friend likes the bike that you use on the paved roads around the island, but this
bike will be very hard to ride in the sand. Which do you choose?
A (Existence choice): You choose the sand bike because you know that it will be easy
to maneuver it in the loose sand on the way to your friend’s house and you don’t care if
your friend thinks it looks silly, because you don’t want to put yourself through trying to
ride a bike that is not designed for use in the sand to impress your friend. 89 percent/
3.95
B (Relatedness choice): You choose the bike designed for use on pavement, even
though you know you’ll have a heck of a time trying to maneuver it through the loose
sand. You want to impress your friend with the bike you know that he or she likes. 11
percent/ 2.92
There is a significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 4.28
Relatedness rating: 2.44
Growth rating: 3.36
Believability: 2.91
A.4 Question ER4
You need to use transit to get to a football game in a place with which you are not
extremely familiar. You have a choice between two special event transit pick-up areas.
However, the passengers who typically ride this bus line are opposing fans and they
have hassled you the few times you have ridden this shuttle service in the past. You
understand that there are two shuttle pick-up areas, one for the opposing team and one
for the home team. You haven’t yet been able to locate the opposing team pick-up area,
because you have only ridden the shuttle bus from the home team pick-up area. Which
do you choose?
A (Existence Choice): You ride from the home team pick-up into the stadium, because
you don’t want to get lost looking for this visitor pick-up area. You can handle being
harassed, but not being lost. 30 percent/ 2.86
B (Relatedness Choice): You go looking for visitor’s pick-up point so that you don’t
have to be harassed on your way into the stadium. It took approximately 10 minutes to
B-2
find this area, but you feel more comfortable riding into the game with the fans from your
team and now you know you won’t get lost again. 70 percent/ 3.76
There is a significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 4.20
Relatedness rating: 3.70
Growth rating: 3.14
Believability: 3.22
A.5a Question ER5
You and your spouse would like to drive a car 50 miles to Glacier National Forest for
some hiking. There are two cars available for the drive, your 2004 H2 Hummer or your
significant other’s Toyota Prius, which needs some brake work. You want to take the
Hummer because it is in perfect running condition, especially for the steep mountain
twists and turns found in the park. Your significant other has never liked the Hummer
because it is ‘an ostentacious gas-guzzler.’ Your significant other would rather take a
more ‘humble’ car, even if it needs brake work, and claims that the Prius is
fundamentally sound for mountainous travel. What do you choose?
A (Relatedness Choice). You honor the wishes of your significant other to NOT ride in
your H2 Hummer and you take the Prius on the mountain ride, reasoning that their
happiness is more important than little brake work. 12 percent/ 2.32
B (Existence Choice). You’re worried that the brakes on the Prius might not be safe
enough for mountain climbing and so you insist on bringing the car which has the safer
equipment, even though your significant other resents having to ride in the ‘gas-guzzler.’
88 percent/ 4.31
There is a significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 4.49
Relatedness rating: 3.49
Growth rating: 3.64
Believability: 3.57
A.6 Question ER6
You take the train to work each morning. You usually wait 15 minutes for the train to
arrive. You have the choice of riding one of two trains, which arrive 5 minutes apart at
separate platforms, so that if you decided to take one train, you would not see the
people from the other train. The one train arrives on platform A and usually has some
unusual types of people waiting to load and these people make you feel nervous about
what they might do. However, one of the days when you were waiting on platform A, you
noticed a very attractive person getting off the train as you were getting on. If you use
the train at platform B, you probably will not see this possible love interest again soon,
but you will be waiting with people who make you feel safer. What do you do?
B-3
A (Relatedness Choice). You take the train at platform A, because you want to see that
very attractive person again. You can handle the nervousness over the strange people if
you can see this potential love interest again. 36 percent/ 3.07
B (Existence Choice). You take the train from platform B, because the unusual people
just make you feel too unsafe and you want to wait with people who make you feel safer.
64 percent/ 3.64
There is a significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 4.14
Relatedness rating: 3.30
Growth rating: 3.46
Believability: 3.12
A.7 Question ER7
You are going to start riding your bike to work, a commute of 3-4 miles every day. A
group of your friends also want to ride into work with you. However, you disagree on
which route to take. Your friends want to take a shorter route, that is 3 miles long, that
includes some very congested roads on which you don’t feel safe. You want to take the
4 mile route which has less congestion and is safer. But, you also really would like to
ride with your friends, because it will make the bike ride more fun. What do you choose?
A (Relatedness Choice). You choose to ride with your friends on the congested road,
because you would rather ride a shorter route and be with your friends riding into work
than alone. 33 percent/ 3.02
B (Existence Choice). You choose to ride in the safer, less congested area, even
though you have to ride a longer distance and you can’t ride with your friends. 67
percent/ 3.67
There is a significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 4.23
Relatedness rating: 3.08
Growth rating: 3.13
Believability: 3.35
A.8 Question ER8
You are going to take the bus to the mall. You have the option of two different bus stops
which are convenient to your house. The bus stop that is only 2 blocks from your house
makes you feel a bit nervous, because there is no shelter or bench, it is very close to the
oncoming flow fast traffic, and there is a large overhang from the building next to the bus
stop that makes you feel a bit crowded. Most of your friends use this stop. The other
stop is a really nice shelter, with plenty of bench space and protection from the
elements, as well as protection from the oncoming traffic. This stop makes you feel
much safer than the one that is so exposed to traffic. However, you have to walk 3
blocks to access this stop and your friends don’t usually use this stop. But, you do like
the fact that you have shelter and a place to sit. Which do you choose?
B-4
A (Existence Choice): You choose to walk the extra block to access the safer stop
because you like the safety that this stop affords you, as opposed to the corner stop.
You don't mind if you don't get to wait with your friends. 70 percent/ 3.69
B (Relatedness Choice). You choose the corner stop because it is more convenient
and you can wait with your friends. You are not all that concerned about your safety
being in such close proximity to traffic. 30 percent/ 3.10
There is a significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 3.87
Relatedness rating: 3.13
Growth rating: 3.42
Believability: 3.22
A.9 Question ER9
You are going to walk to the store and you have two paths to choose from. On one of the
paths, you must cross a gas station in order to get to the store. This is the shortest and
most convenient route and you are able to stop by your friend's Pizzeria on the way.
Recently, there have been some gang members hanging out in this gas station lot and
you feel afraid to cross by the gas station because of this reason. You used to like to
stop by your friend’s pizzeria to hang out and have a slice on the way back from the
store. But, you have started taking the second route, even though it is longer and more
complex and does NOT go by your friend's Pizzeria. You really want to stop by your
friend’s pizzeria on the way home from the store today. What do you do?
A (Relatedness Choice). You choose to take the route that takes you by the gas
station, hoping that the gang members will not notice you crossing in front of ‘their’ gas
station. You want to go hang out with your friend at the pizzeria and you don't want to let
the hoodlums scare you off any longer. 24 percent/ 1.62
B (Existence Choice). You choose the second route that is longer, but safe from the
gang members. This doesn’t allow you to see your friend, but you figure that you can
call for carry out if you want some pizza and your friend can come and visit you in your
home, where you feel safer. 76 percent/ 4.15
There is a significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 4.44
Relatedness rating: 2.72
Growth rating: 2.96
Believability: 3.29
A.10a Question ER10
You are driving with your boy/girlfriend in a rural area on your way to a local College
campus. Your girl/boyfriend thinks that you should take a route into campus that is rural
and icy and slippery, because he/she wants to show you this place where you can go
B-5
sledding this weekend. You feel nervous riding on icy roads, but you know that your
boy/girlfriend will be angry if you choose not to go by the sledding site. You also know
how terrified you were when you lost control of your car on this same slippery route a
week ago. Which do you choose?
A (Existence Choice). You choose the local maintained route for your own safety and,
since he/she is riding with you, the safety of your boy/girlfriend. Your boy/girlfriend is
very upset and unhappy that you won’t drive by the sledding site and pouts all the way
into campus, but you feel more comfortable on the maintained route. 85 percent/ 3.81
B (Relatedness Choice). You choose to indulge your boy/girlfriend and drive by the
sledding site on the way to campus, even though you don’t feel safe driving on an
unplowed icy road and you are afraid that you might have an accident. But, you are glad
that you are making your boy/girlfriend happy. 15 percent/ 2.60
There is a significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 4.52
Relatedness rating: 2.83
Growth rating: 2.86
Believability: 3.54
B.1 Question EG1
You usually ride the EL (elevated train) to work in Downtown Chicago. The Chicago
Transit Authority has issued a terrorist warning about which routes may be susceptible
because of their location in the city. The route that you usually take to work is on this list
and there is another route that you can take to work that is not at risk, but you have to
look at the backside of ugly row houses. What do you do?
A (Growth Choice): You choose to ride on your normal route, reasoning that the U.S.
State Department issues warnings all of the time about terrorist threats, with none of
them happening. You enjoy your ride into work in the morning, and you’re not altering
your route because of State Department warning that something might happen. 50
percent/ 3.51
B (Existence Choice): You are really afraid of another terrorist attack in a city such as
Chicago, so you choose to alter your route and go the ‘ugly’ route, even though you miss
your ‘beautiful’ route, in order to feel safer. 50 percent/ 3.22
There is not a significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 3.88
Relatedness rating: 3.12
Growth rating: 2.88
Believability: 3.20
B.2 Question EG2
B-6
You are going to ride an Amtrak train to see your family. The train ride will last for 5
hours. You have a choice of two trains. The first one is a commuter special train that
offers a bargain rate for commuters at certain hours of the day. You know that this train
is often very crowded and when you have taken this train before, you’ve been very
uncomfortable and hot from overcrowding. You are somewhat interested in taking this
train because it is only $36. But, you know that you could take another train that would
not be so overcrowded and you would have room to relax or to sleep or work on the
train. You like the idea of the extra comfort during your train ride, but the less crowded
train is more than twice the price of the commuter special train at $75. You want to
save money, but you also want to be comfortable. What do you choose?
A (Growth Choice): You choose to save money and ride the crowded train, figuring that
you can stand several of hours of discomfort to save half of the fare. 11 percent/ 2.50
B (Existence Choice): You choose comfort over cost and choose to ride the more
expensive, but more spacious train. Five hours is a long time to be packed into a small
space. 89 percent/ 4.35
There is a significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 4.24
Relatedness rating: 3.00
Growth rating: 3.30
Believability: 3.20
B.3b Question EG3
You want to ride a bike to visit your friend to play a board game. Your friend lives 3 miles
from you, down a soft dirt road. You can either use a regular bike that has a basket for
a board game, which will be very hard to safely maneuver in soft dirt. Or, you can take
the sand bike and the wide and light plastic tires will make riding in loose sand or dirt a
breeze. But, the beach bike does not have a convenient basket for your board game, so
you will have to figure out a way to carry it on the sand bike. Which do you choose?
A (Existence Choice): You choose the sand bike. You know that if you try to ride the
regular bike in the soft dirt, it will be extremely hard and inefficient, even though the
regular bike has a carrying basket for your game. You think you can find another way to
carry the game if the riding can be made easier. 78 percent/ 3.82
B (Growth Choice): You can’t figure out another way to get the board game to your
friend’s house, so you choose the bike with a basket. You know that it will be hard to ride
the regular bike through loose dirt, but you can’t figure out how else to carry the game to
your friend’s house. 22 percent/ 2.95
There is a significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 4.30
Relatedness rating: 2.12
Growth rating: 3.07
Believability: 2.49
B-7
B.4b Question EG4
You are going to a concert in a somewhat unfamiliar city. You have a choice between
two transit lines. The bus line has published extensive maps and other documentation
that allow you to easily use the bus line. However, you will have to switch buses two
times in order to reach your destination. There is also a trolley service that you noticed,
but you are not sure of where this trolley goes or if it will take you to the concert. A
stranger in the parking lot tells you that the trolley will take you to the concert. Do you
choose to take the bus, because you are certain of where it goes, even though it might
be inconvenient, or do you take the Trolley based on word of mouth information? Which
do you choose?
A (Existence Choice): You love this group and you don’t want to miss the concert and
you know for sure that the bus system will get you there and you have solid information
about where it goes and what time it will get to the event center. So, you discount what
the stranger in the parking lot said and go for the sure thing. 61 percent/ 3.43
B (Growth Choice): You decide to take the word of the stranger in the parking lot and
you catch the Trolley to see where it goes. You figure that the stranger in the parking lot
was trying to be helpful and save you some time. So, you jump aboard the Trolley,
hoping that it will take you to the concert. 39 percent/ 3.40
There is not a significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 3.97
Relatedness rating: 3.64
Growth rating: 3.63
Believability: 3.33
B.5b Question EG5
You are going to take a 200 mile trip with your family to go camping and hiking in a
national forest this weekend. You have a choice of two cars. You have a Jeep Grand
Cherokee and a Toyota Prius. In the past few days, the Jeep seems to be having some
engine trouble and you really don’t have time to take it into the shop prior to your trip.
The Jeep has a lot more space for your passengers and hiking gear than the Prius, but
you are afraid that the Jeep will have engine trouble up in the mountains. You know for
sure that the Prius is in tip top shape because you just had it serviced by your mechanic
two weeks ago. You’re not sure of what to do, because the Prius really doesn’t have a
lot of passenger or cargo space and there are four of you. Which do you choose?
A (Growth Choice). You decide that you want to have enough space for people and
cargo. You believe that the Jeep can make the trip, even given the recent engine
problems, so you go ahead and hope that don’t break down 200 miles from home. 14
percent/ 2.85
B (Existence Choice). You decide that you don’t want to chance having a major engine
breakdown 200 miles from home. You decide to stuff 4 people and cargo in a smaller car
that you know for sure will get you roundtrip on your camping trip. 86 percent/ 4.04
B-8
There is a significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 4.41
Relatedness rating: 2.14
Growth rating: 3.49
Believability: 3.64
B.6b Question EG6
You take a train to work each morning and you usually wait approximately 15 minutes for
your train to arrive each morning. You live equidistant between two train stations. At
one train station, you can have amenities such as a coffee shop, a newsstand and a nice
waiting area. Lately, you have noticed that there are some vagrants hanging out in the
coffee shop and waiting area. They make you feel uncomfortable and a few have even
approached you for money recently and you are worried that they may become violent.
The other station only has vending machines and plastic chairs. You have complained
to the management of the nicer station about the vagrants several times, but they have a
hard time keeping them out, especially if they pay for a cup of coffee. What do you do?
A (Growth Choice). You keep on taking the train from the nicer station. You don’t want
to let the vagrants keep you from enjoying the amenities of the nicer station. 36
percent/ 3.51
B (Existence Choice). You go to the station with less amenities, because the vagrants
at the nicer station make you feel too vulnerable and nervous during your wait. At least
you can get coffee out of the vending machine. 64 percent/ 3.29
There is not a significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 4.26
Relatedness rating: 3.43
Growth rating: 3.48
Believability: 3.25
B.7 Question EG7
You are going to start riding your bike to work, a commute of 3 miles every day. One of
the routes is through a rural, unpopulated area, which runs by a cemetary, but there is
nice scenery along the way. However, you have heard about some strange supernatural
activities in that area in recent weeks that have everyone concerned (i.e., Blair Witch).
The other route is also around 3 miles in length and runs through a very populated area,
but it is not very scenic. Which do you choose?
A (Existence Choice). You choose to ride where there are people, because you are
afraid of riding alone in the rural, deserted area, especially by the cemetery. 50 percent/
3.34
B-9
B (Growth Choice). You choose to take the more scenic route and you think that the
supernatural rumors are just to drum up tourist trade. It's a beautiful ride. 50 percent/
3.62
There is not a significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 4.23
Relatedness rating: 2.97
Growth rating: 3.52
Believability: 3.17
B.8 Question EG8
You are going to meet a friend in Washington D.C. for a night out on the town. Your
really want to go to a restaurant that is off of the transit stop in DuPont Circle, but you
don’t like the DuPont Circle station because there is a very steep escalator into and out
of the station and you are afraid of both heights and escalators. You also heard that a
person was seriously injured recently when their coat got caught in the escalator. Union
Station does not have steep escalator entries or exits in the transit area, so you feel
much safer there, but there are only chain restaurants in and around Union Station
area. You really want to go to this restaurant which is off of the DuPont Circle Metra
stop, but you're scared of the steep escalators and it will cost $10 (versus a $2.50 transit
fare) to catch a taxi from Union Station to the restaurant at DuPont Circle. What do you
choose?
A (Existence Choice): You decide to stay at Union Station to have dinner and to go to
a movie later. You are very disappointed, because you wanted to try the new restaurant,
but you know that you would have felt very panicked and unsafe entering/exiting the
DuPont Circle Station. 27 percent/ 2.85
B (Growth Choice): You decide to venture outside of the relative safety of Union Station
and go to DuPont Circle to the new Asian/French fusion restaurant that you want to try.
You decide to pay the $10 to take a cab from Union Station to DuPont Circle area,
instead of transit. 73 percent/ 3.96
There is a significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 4.04
Relatedness rating: 3.65
Growth rating: 3.62
Believability: 3.20
B.9 Question EG9
B-10
You are going on a walk down to Bayshore Boulevard. You have the choice of two
routes. The one route is safer from traffic, but you also think it’s a tremendously ugly,
industrial part of town. The more scenic route has a lot of traffic on it and you have been
nearly run down by cars crossing the street on this route. What do you do?
A (Growth Choice). You choose the route that takes you into the more congested
traffic route, because you prefer the more scenic route. 24 percent/ 2.91
B (Existence Choice). You choose the less congested, safer route, even though you
don’t like the scenery. 76 percent/ 3.62
There is a significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 4.38
Relatedness rating: 2.99
Growth rating: 3.02
Believability: 3.30
B.10 Question EG10
You are driving in a rural area on your way to a local Campus. You need to take a route
into campus that is rural and icy and slippery, because you want to see where you can
go sledding on the weekend. You are not comfortable or experienced at driving in the
snow, but you want to see the sledding site, so you will know how to get there this
weekend. You lost control of your car in a similar rural area the week before and you are
a bit apprehensive about driving on unmaintained, icy roads. Which do you choose?
A (Existence Choice). You choose the local maintained route for your own safety and
you tell yourself, that for safety's sake, you might not go out to the sledding site at all. 78
percent, 3.67
B (Growth Choice). You choose to ride the unmaintained, rural route, so that you can
see where to go sledding this weekend. You are nervous, but you think that the area will
be very nice to sled around in. 22 percent/ 3.20
There is a significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 4.56
Relatedness rating: 2.95
Growth rating: 2.91
Believability: 3.24
C.1 Question RG1
B-11
You take the bus into work every day. You have a choice of two bus routes. On the one
bus route, there are some people with whom you don’t really like to ride the bus, mostly
because many are vagrants and while not dangerous, offensive to your sense of smell.
However, there is one reason why you enjoy riding this route, the fact that you can see
the beach and the water as well as some very beautiful and historic buildings. It seems
to make going to work more pleasant and worthwhile when you see the beach. The
other route passes industrial areas and housing projects. However, the people on the
less beautiful route are other working people like yourself. You really like to see the
beach every morning, but you can hardly stand the smells of the people who ride the bus
out to the beach every morning. Which route do you choose?
A (Growth Choice): You decide that you need your ‘beach fix’ on the way to work in the
morning, so you put up with the stinky vagrants. You figure that you can sit as far away
as possible from those with the most offending odors and maybe you can ask the bus
driver if you could crack open a window. 43 percent/ 3.66
B (Relatedness Choice): You decide that the vagrants make you so disgusted that
you will have to forego your daily beach route and opt for the less beautiful route that
passes housing projects. You can go to the beach and enjoy the sights on your days off.
57 percent/ 2.95
There is a significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 3.96
Relatedness rating: 3.75
Growth rating: 3.14
Believability: 2.91
C.2 Question RG2
You want to ride a train visit your family for the weekend. Your family wants you to ride
the express train, because it gets in at 7 pm and it will be more convenient for them to
pick you up at this time. However, you want to ride a later train that gets in at 10 pm
because this train is less expensive than the other train, $36 versus $46. You know that
your family will be unhappy for most of your visit if you choose the later train. What do
you do?
A (Relatedness Choice): You choose to honor your family’s wishes and to take the
earlier and more expensive train, because you want to make your family happy. 80
percent/ 3.70
B (Growth Choice): You choose to save yourself some money and ride the later train.
Your family is very unhappy over this, but you saved money. 20 percent/ 3.62
There is not a significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 4.32
Relatedness rating: 3.73
Growth rating: 2.73
Believability: 3.46
B-12
C.3 Question RG3
You want to ride your bike 2 miles to visit your friend to play a board game. You have a
choice of two bikes, one that your friend thinks is really cool and one that has a polka
dotted basket on the front that your friend ridicules you about. However, the basket
would help you to carry the board game. What do you choose?
A (Relatedness Choice): You choose the bike that your friend thinks is cool, even
though it’s hard to manage riding the bike and carrying the board game without the
basket on the other bike. 18 percent/ 2.59
B (Growth Choice): You choose the polka-dotted basket bike that your friend thinks is
really silly-looking, because it is easier to carry the board game using this bike. 82
percent/ 3.70
There is a significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 4.16
Relatedness rating: 2.33
Growth rating: 3.78
Believability: 2.66
C.4 Question RG4
You are going to take a bus to get to a concert taking place in a town that you are not
super familiar with. You have a choice between two routes in the town. On one of the
routes you will only have to make one transfer to get to the concert. However, you have
taken this route before and the people on it were obnoxious and possibly intoxicated.
You don’t think that these people are dangerous, just annoying. The other route has
more considerate and friendlier people, but you will have to make two transfers to get to
your concert if you take this route. Which route do you choose?
A (Relatedness Choice): You choose the route with the nicer people. You would rather
be inconvenienced by the transfers than have to ride the bus with a bunch of obnoxious
people. 54 percent/ 3.72
B (Growth Choice): You choose the route with only one transfer, figuring that you can
deal with the obnoxious people for the convenience of not having to transfer. 46
percent/ 3.09
There is a significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 4.18
Relatedness rating: 3.50
Growth rating: 4.04
Believability: 3.30
B-13
C.5 Question RG5
You are going to drive 200 miles to go hiking in a national forest. You have a choice of
two different cars. Your significant other doesn’t like your hybrid car that you want to
take and wants to bring his/her Jeep. You think that the hybrid will do just as well and
will be better for the environment. Which do you choose?
A (Growth Choice). You choose to bring the hybrid, even though your significant other
doesn’t really like it all that much. He/she thinks that it’s really uncool next to his/her
Jeep and complains the whole time that he/she doesn’t have enough space for the
hiking gear. 24 percent/ 3.30
B (Relatedness Choice). You choose to make your boy/girlfriend happy by bringing the
Jeep, so that he/she will have enough space for his/her hiking gear, even though it will
use a lot of gasoline and produce a lot of emissions. 76 percent/ 3.81
There is a significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 4.36
Relatedness rating: 3.15
Growth rating: 3.43
Believability: 3.58
C.6 Question RG6
You take the train to work each morning. You usually wait 15 minutes for the train to
arrive. You have the choice of two train stations, which are equal distance from your
home. Train station A is a hub and it has shopping and restaurants and nice waiting
areas. Train station B is nicely landscaped and attractive and offers shelter from the
elements, but does not have all of the shops, restaurants, and other amenities that Train
station A has. However, while waiting for train B, you noticed and had a nice interaction
with a very attractive person, who you would like to get to know better. Which do you
choose?
A (Relatedness Choice). You choose train B, because you want to use your 15 minutes
of waiting time to get to know this person better. 66 percent/ 3.79
B (Growth Choice) . You choose train A, because you like having all of the amenities
and you hope that you will find another attractive person at this stop. 34 percent/ 3.39
There is a significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 4.32
Relatedness rating: 3.70
Growth rating: 3.31
Believability: 3.34
B-14
C.7 Question RG7
You are getting ready for a 5-day bike trip to the Grand Tetons. You and your spouse
are avid cyclists and enjoy these types of trips. You are trying to decide between two
different paths. You want to bike in the Grand Tetons and it’s a very mountainous area.
But, you like this one route that is full of natural potholes and your spouse likes the route
that will be easier to ride on. You tell your spouse that it will be a fun adventure and that
the scenery will be much better on the more strenuous route, especially the wildlife.
Your spouse is an avid cyclist, too, and does enjoy a good ride, but feels that the
difficulty of the route isn’t worth the tradeoff for scenery. According to your guide, both
routes are equally safe, it’s just that one is much more strenuous than another. The
guide agrees with you that the more strenuous route is also slightly more scenic than the
less strenuous route, mainly that you get to be closer to wildlife such as moose and
bison. What do you choose?
A (Growth Choice). You choose the more strenuous route, because you want the
better scenery and vistas, even though your spouse is a bit resentful that you didn’t take
his/her feelings into consideration. You figure that your spouse is in really good physical
shape and they can handle the harder route. You think they’ll thank you later for
choosing the better scenery. 25 percent/ 3.46
B (Relatedness Choice). You choose the less strenuous ride, because you know that 5days is a long time to be with an unhappy spouse and you want for him or her to enjoy
the ride just as much as you do. In the Grand Tetons, the scenery never disappoints
and maybe if your spouse has a good time on this bike trip he or she will agree to the
harder one next time. 75 percent/ 4.14
There is a significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 4.38
Relatedness rating: 4.21
Growth rating: 3.46
Believability: 3.34
C.8 Question RG8
You are going to meet a friend in Washington D.C. for a night out on the town. Your
friend wants to meet at a transit stop in DuPont Circle and you want to meet at Union
Station. DuPont Circle is just a concrete hole in the ground that you take an escalator
into and out of. It is not nearly as nice as you think Union Station is. But, your friend is
very insistent on going to DuPont Circle to their favorite restaurant. You’re not sure if
you want to leave Union Station, which is also surrounded by beautiful and historical
buildings to go to a local neighborhood that may not be as lovely. You are also only in
town for the one night and it is your tradition to go to Union Station and people watch
and enjoy the atmosphere and shopping and restaurants. But, you also only see your
friend a few times a year when you’re in D.C. on business and you want to make him or
her happy as well. What do you choose?
A (Growth Choice): You tell your friend that you don’t live in D.C., so you get to decide
where you go and you want to visit Union Station on your only night there. You know
B-15
that your friend will be disappointed, but you really enjoying seeing the surrounding
areas of Union Station. 13 percent/ 3.35
B (Relatedness Choice). You decide to do something different and you take the Metra
to the DuPont Circle station and you meet your friend at the Asian/French fusion
restaurant that they mentioned. You figure that you will return to D.C. in a few months
and you can see Union Station then. 87 percent/ 3.91
There is a significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 3.89
Relatedness rating: 3.12
Growth rating: 3.54
Believability: 3.54
C.9 Question RG9
You are going on a walk with your parents down Bayshore Boulevard in Tampa. You
have the choice of two routes. One route is significantly longer than the other route.
The shorter route takes you past a vacant lot that just is so ugly you feel it spoils the
walk for you. The longer route has some areas that aren’t as beautiful as you would like,
but not as blighted as you think the vacant lot is. However, your parents do not want to
walk two miles instead of one mile just so that you don’t have to look at the vacant lot.
It’s not dangerous, it’s just ugly, they tell you, and they want to get to beautiful Bayshore
more quickly. You know that your parents are capable of walking the two miles, but it
means that they will not be able to enjoy the walk along Bayshore for as long. The main
goal of the walk is to enjoy the beauty of Bayshore. What do you do?
A (Relatedness Choice). You choose to take the route that takes you by the vacant
lot, keeping your eyes straight ahead on the sidewalk and diverting them from the ugly
lot. You know that your parents appreciate the fact that you will walk past a small
blighted area in order for your family to get to Bayshore more quickly for your evening
walk. 96 percent/ 3.64
B (Growth Choice). You decide that you just can’t deal with that vacant lot and decide
to make your parents walk the two mile route as opposed to the one mile route. Your
parents are very unhappy that you are making them waste time that they could spend
walking on Bayshore, walking along the Downtown streets in Tampa and aren’t very nice
company on the walk. 4 percent/ 3.10
There is a significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 4.42
Relatedness rating: 4.09
Growth rating: 3.21
Believability: 3.30
B-16
C.10 Question RG10
You are driving to a local campus with your boy/girlfriend. You want to go by and see an
exposition presentation. Going by the exposition is inconvenient and your boy/girlfriend
doesn’t want to go to it. But, you do have time before your classes start and you think
that it would be fun for the both of you to go by the exposition. You know that your
boy/girlfriend just wants to get to class and will be angry if you go by the exposition.
What choice do you make?
A (Relatedness Choice). You choose to go straight to your classes, missing the
exposition that you wanted to see, but pleasing your boy/girlfriend. 50 percent/ 3.33
B (Growth Choice). You choose to ignore your significant other’s wishes and you take
him/her to see the exposition anyway, thinking that they will like it once they get there.
50 percent/ 3.79
There is not a significant difference between ratings for A and B.
Existence rating: 4.79
Relatedness rating: 3.30
Growth rating: 2.62
Believability: 3.79
B-17